Court Opinion

ID: 9365643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 18:01:29.324743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.667636
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH EMANUEL BAPTISTE,                       No. 21-16357

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:19-cv-06551-HSG

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
B. MARTINEZ, Correctional Counselor II;
M. WYNN, Senior Staff Psychologist; J.
HOWLIN, Chief of Mental Health; M.
DEANTONI, Staff Psychologist,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

J. LEWIS, Deputy Director of Policy and
Risk Management, of CDC Healthcare
Services; S. HATTON, Warden,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                 Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Kenneth Emanuel Baptiste, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C.§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

Martinez and De Antoni because Baptiste failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether these defendants were deliberately indifferent in

denying Baptiste’s request for single-cell status where these defendants

interviewed Baptiste and reviewed his disciplinary and mental health records. See

id. at 1057-60 (holding that deliberate indifference is a high legal standard and a

prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards

an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference

of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate

indifference); Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 371 (9th

Cir. 1998) (violation of a state regulation does not, on its own, give rise to liability

under § 1983).

      The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Wynn

and Howlin because Baptiste failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

                                           2                                     21-16357
whether these defendants were sufficiently involved in any decision to deny

Baptiste single-cell status. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.

2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved

in the constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between

the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and

internal quotation omitted)); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1086 (9th

Cir. 2014) (discussing reviewer reliance on prison medical opinions).

      Baptiste’s motion for sanctions (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                   21-16357