Court Opinion

ID: 9365647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 18:01:30.939581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.681711
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

ERNEST LEE DEAN,                                No. 21-35447

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02050-JR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DRAVIS; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUION; OREGON DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Oregon
                   Jolie A. Russo, Magistrate 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 parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
      ***
             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.

      Oregon state prisoner Ernest Lee Dean appeals pro se from the district

court’s 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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012)

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th

Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Toguchi Chung, 391

F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment for Dr. Gulick

because Dean failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr.

Gulick was deliberately indifferent to Dean’s chronic degenerative disc disease.

See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only

if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical

malpractice or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference).

      The district court properly dismissed Dean’s claims against the Oregon

Department of Corrections and Snake River Correctional Institution as barred

under the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,

465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“[I]n the absence of consent a suit in which the State or

one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the

Eleventh Amendment.”); Brown v. Oregon Dep’t of Corr., 751 F.3d 983, 988 (9th

                                          2                                    21-35447
Cir. 2014) (dismissing claims against the Oregon Department of Corrections under

the Eleventh Amendment).

      AFFIRMED.

                                       3                                  21-35447