Court Opinion

ID: 6317782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-25 21:01:05.56038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:19.014804
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                                                                          FEB 25 2022
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN KEVIN GRAY,                               No. 20-17337

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00716-MMD-CLB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ISIDRO BACA, Warden; BRIAN WARD;
ROMEO ARANAS; T. WICKHAM, true
name: Theresa Wickham; MARKS, Doctor;
true name: Dana Marks; JENNIFER, Last
name unknown; CANDI BROCKAWAY,
true name: Candice Brockway; true name:
Candis Rambur,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Nevada state prisoner Brian Kevin Gray appeals pro se from the district

      *
             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).
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 because Gray failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants unreasonably

delayed in providing him with essential medications or ignored his medical

symptoms. See id. at 1057-60 (holding that deliberate indifference is a “high legal

standard” requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an

inmate’s health; medical malpractice or negligence does not amount to deliberate

indifference); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that

liability under § 1983 requires a showing of personal participation in the alleged

rights deprivation).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   20-17337