Court Opinion

ID: 9945488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:01:33.31159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:30.596218
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL JOHN BRADWAY,                           No. 22-16356

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00436-DAD-KJN

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
YASHODARA RAO, Chief Dr. of Mental
Health, E.O.P,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Gabriel John Bradway appeals pro se from the

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

claims arising from his mental health treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28

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

      *
             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).
Cir. 2004). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradway’s

deliberate indifference claim because Bradway failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether defendant Rao acted with deliberate indifference by

declining to intervene to prevent Bradway’s assignment to a double cell or was

otherwise personally involved in any alleged constitutional violation. See Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official cannot be held liable for

deliberate indifference “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive

risk to inmate health or safety”); Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th

Cir. 2016) (“To show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must show that the

course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the

circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of

an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.” (alteration, citation, and internal

quotation marks omitted)); 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 marks omitted)).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

                                            2                                       22-16356
All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

                                  3   22-16356