Court Opinion

ID: 9374699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 19:00:38.323388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.549187
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRANDYN WILLIAM GAYLER,                         No. 21-17028

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00431-JCM-VCF

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF NEVADA; B. SANDOVAL;
JAMES DZURENDA; COX; B.
WILLIAMS; NEVENS; J. HOWELL; D.
WILSON; STROUD; J. NASH; BARTH;
HESSLER; ESTILLE; J. GARCIA;
FRENCH; SEMA; RULAN; AUGUSTINE;
MARTIN; NORMAN; FLORES;
LINFORD; PROVOCIAL; B. YEATES;
GREGORY COX; DWIGHT NEVENS;
BRIAN WILLIAMS, Warden; JERRY
HOWELL, Warden; DUANE WILSON,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, 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).
      Nevada state prisoner Brandyn William Gayler appeals pro se from the

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

deliberate indifference and other constitutional violations. 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 Brian

Williams, Dwane Wilson, Jennifer Nash, and Jerry Howell on Gayler’s deliberate

indifference claim because Gayler failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact

as to whether these defendants were personally involved in any constitutional

violations or engaged in any wrongful acts causally connected to any constitutional

violations. See 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)). The generalized information in Gayler’s

grievances was insufficient to make defendants aware of any intentional tampering

with his food. 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; the official must both be

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of

                                          2                                     21-17028
serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”).

      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).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                                  21-17028