Court Opinion

ID: 9909994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 18:01:00.546834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:25.213842
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 14 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KRIS K. BENNETT,                                No.    22-36046

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00154-TOR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CHRIS HICKS, Correctional Unit
Supervisor, CRCC,

                Defendant-Appellant,

and

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS; et al.,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                    Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

                     Argued and Submitted December 7, 2023
                              Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Chris Hicks appeals from the district court’s denial of summary judgment

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
based on qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See

Peck v. Montoya, 51 F.4th 877, 885 (9th Cir. 2022). We review de novo and

reverse.

      Kris Bennett brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Hicks

violated the Eighth Amendment in failing to protect him from assault by his prison

cellmate. Hicks filed an answer pleading qualified immunity as an affirmative

defense. We assume without deciding that a genuine dispute exists as to whether

Hicks violated the Eighth Amendment.

      “Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a

clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232

(2009). To show that the law was clearly established at the time of the events,

“[p]laintiffs must ‘identify a case where an officer acting under similar

circumstances as [the defendant] was held to have violated the [Eighth]

Amendment.’” Sharp v. Cnty. of Orange, 871 F.3d 901, 911 (9th Cir. 2017)

(quoting White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017)). Here, Bennett fails to do so. In

his briefing and at oral argument, Bennett points to only two cases: Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), and Wilk v. Neven, 956 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2020).

But the Court in Farmer merely established the broad strokes of a failure to protect

claim under the Eighth Amendment, which “is not sufficient” to put a reasonable

officer on notice as to whether the officer’s conduct violated the Constitution, see

                                          2
Est. of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir. 2002); and the

Ninth Circuit published Wilk in 2020, two years after the alleged constitutional

violation in this case, see 956 F.3d at 1143. Bennett has thus failed to identify a

case that demonstrates what “clearly established constitutional right” Hicks

violated. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. Accordingly, Hicks is entitled to qualified

immunity, and we reverse the district court’s ruling to the contrary.

      REVERSED.

                                           3