T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R A Y M O N D D . C H E S T E R , J r ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J O H N D E M O R A L E S , E xe c ut i ve D i r e c t or of A t as ca dero S t at e H ospi t al (A S H ), as in d iv id u a l c ap a c itie s ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 55773 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 -cv -0 4 2 5 6 -D M G -JC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D ol l yM . G e e , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R ay m on d D . C hest er , Jr . , w ho i s c om m i tt ed t o a st at e psy chi atri c hospi t al f a c i l i ty , ap p e a l s p r o s e f

r o m th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s s u mma ryj u d g me n ti n h i s 4 2 U . S. C. 

# FI LED SEP 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 55773 2 § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng thatdefe nd ant s f ai l ed t o p rot ec thi m fr om as saul tby another pa t i e nt . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo, D oe 1 v . A bbot t L abs . , 5 7 1 F. 3 d9 3 0 , 9 3 3 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton C hest er ’ s f ai l ure t o p rot ec tcl ai m because C hest erfa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i al fa ctas to w h e th e rd e f

e n d a n ts s u b s ta n tia llyd e p a rte df r o m a c c e p te dp r o f

e s s io n a l ju d g m e n t, o rw e r e p e r s o n a llyin v o lv e din th e a lle g e dc o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s . See Y ou ng berg v. R om eo , 45 7 U . S . 30 7, 32 1-23 (198 2); Starr v . B aca , 652 F . 3d 1202, 1 2 0 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 13 2 S . C t . 21 01 (201 2). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton C hest er ’ s f ai l ure t o tr a i n c l a i m be c aus e C he s t e rf a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e a s t o w he the rthe e xi s t i ng tr a i ni ng pr ogr a m w a s i na de qua t e , w he the ra nyf a i l ur e t o tr a i n w a s the r e s u lt o f d e f e n d an ts ’ d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e , o rw h e th e rth e a lle g e d lyin a d e q u a te tr a in in g w a s w h a t “a c tu a llyc au s e d ” th e a lle g e dc o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . Merri t t v. C ou nt y of L os A ng eles , 87 5 F . 2d 76 5, 77 0 (9th C i r. 19 89 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng C he s t e r ’ s m ot i on for app oi ntm entof coun se l because C hest erfa i l ed t o est abl i sh exce pt i on al c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Se e A g

y e ma n v . C o rr . C o r

p . o f A m. , 39 0 F . 3d 11 01 , 11 03 (9th C i r. 2004) ( s e tt i ng f

orth s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w a nd r e qui r e m e nt s f orappoi ntm e ntof11- 55773 3 coun se l ). C h e s te r ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s c o n c e rn in g d is c o v e ryis s u e s a r e u n a v a ilin g . AF F I RME D.