Court Opinion

ID: 9964686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 17:01:22.341885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:39.298278
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE ELLIOT WILLIAMS,                          No. 22-55974

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01581-TWR-KSC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
NAVARRO, Correction Officer (3rd Watch
Control Tower); E. ESTRADA, Correctional
Officer; J. MEJIA, Correctional Officer; A.
SILVA, Correctional Officer; CASTRO,
Correctional Officer; M. RODRIGUEZ,
Correctional Officer; R. RODRIGUEZ,
Correctional Officer; T. BRISIO, Psych
Tech; JOHN DOES, 1, 2, and 3; Correctional
Officers,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                   Todd W. Robinson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
          Lance Elliot Williams, a former 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 Mejia,

Navarro, Estrada, R. Rodriguez, M. Rodriguez, Silva, and Castro because Williams

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants

were deliberately indifference to his serious medical needs. See id. at 1057-60

(explaining that deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard” requiring a

defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); T.W.

Elec. Serv. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987)

(to preclude summary judgment, a party may not rest on allegations in his

pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial).

          We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s summary judgment for

defendant Brisio because Williams failed to file an amended or separate notice of

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585

(9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the requirement to file an amended or new notice of

                                             2                                    22-55974
appeal in order to contest an issue arising after filing an earlier notice of appeal).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           3                                     22-55974