Smith v. Yates, 061319 FED9, 16-15528
|Party Name:||MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||June 13, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 11, 2019 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California No. 1:07-cv-01547-SRB, Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Lenoir Smith 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. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary judgment); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court's decision on qualified immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that housing Smith in prisons in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever is endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2019) (existing Valley Fever cases did not clearly...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP