NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD W. PETERS, AKA William No. 18-17334
Peters Richard,
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00493-RCJ-WGC
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES RAYMOND, C/O; et al.,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
MILLER, Sgt.; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Ira Brannon appeals from the district court’s order denying him
*
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).
qualified immunity in plaintiff Richard W. Peters’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging deliberate indifference claims. We have jurisdiction over this
interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765,
771-73 (2014). We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment and
qualified immunity determinations. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th
Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that, resolving all factual disputes and
drawing all reasonable inferences in Peters’s favor, Brannon is not entitled to
qualified immunity because Peters’s right to be free from violence at the hands of
other inmates was clearly established, and a reasonable official would have known
that placing Peters back in the same cell after he was physically attacked by his
cellmate would violate the Eighth Amendment. See Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct.
305, 308 (2015) (per curiam) (discussing qualified immunity; explaining that a
clearly established right “is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable
official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right” and
existing precedent must have placed the constitutional question beyond debate).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-17334
Richard Peters v. Charles Raymond
Combined Opinion