FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY G. HERBERT, No. 14-35562
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00044-TSZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WALTER LOVELL, Individually and in
His Official Capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Anthony G. Herbert, a former King County pretrial detainee, appeals pro se
from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious mental health needs. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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), and we may affirm on any
ground supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389
F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants Lovell
and Jackson because Herbert failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether these defendants were deliberately indifferent to Herbert’s serious mental
health needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a
prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a mere difference of opinion concerning
the course of treatment nor negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical
condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Clouthier v. County of
Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241 (9th Cir. 2010) (deliberate indifference
standard applies to pretrial detainees); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th
Cir. 1996) (a prisoner “must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose
was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and “that they chose this
course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health”).
Summary judgment was proper for defendant Dumas because Herbert failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to Dumas’s supervisory liability. See
2 14-35562
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for
establishing supervisory liability).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35562