FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH GREGORY WILLIAMS, No. 12-35091
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00730-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 10, 2013
Portland, Oregon
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Gregory Williams appeals from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations under the Eighth
Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
-2-
novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), its decision granting qualified immunity, Prison Legal
News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th Cir. 2005), and its decision granting
Eleventh Amendment immunity, Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d
836, 838 (9th Cir. 1997), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Jerry
Becker, Dave Degner, David Gillies, Ole Hansen, Ted Randall, Steven Shelton,
Jennifer Stevens, and John Vargo because Williams failed to raise a triable issue of
fact as to whether any of these defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Whether
additional diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment were necessary were matters
for the defendants’ medical judgment, see id. at 107, and there is no evidence that
they chose a course of treatment that was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances or that they otherwise knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to
Williams’ health, see Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 987–88 (9th Cir. 2012);
Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057.
It necessarily follows that because Williams has not shown a constitutional
violation, the defendants are also entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v.
Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231–32 (2009). To whatever extent the defendants were
-3-
sued in their official capacities for money damages or retrospective equitable relief,
Eleventh Amendment immunity bars those claims. See Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub.
Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (“In determining whether the
doctrine of Ex parte Young [209 U.S. 123 (1908)] avoids an Eleventh Amendment
bar to suit, a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether the
complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly
characterized as prospective.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.