FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIE BAILEY, III, No. 10-17750
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02067-GEB-
EFB
v.
J. WEDELL; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Willie Bailey, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bailey failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Penner, Turella,
or Howard were involved in or had any control over ordering, scheduling, or
performing the relevant surgeries. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th
Cir. 1989) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983; plaintiff must show
personal involvement in alleged violations); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633
(9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of a constitutional right, within the
meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that
causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains.” (alteration, citation, and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Bailey’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-17750