Gregory Goodman v. Laura Donnelly ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY EDWARD GOODMAN, No. 20-15310
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04233-DJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LAURA DONNELLY, individual & official
capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
LAURIE LECLAIR; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2021**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Edward Goodman, formerly an inmate in the custody of the
*
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).
Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”), appeals pro se the district court’s
summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants
violated his Eighth Amendment rights by providing a vegan diet that is
nutritionally deficient. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Donnelly, a
registered dietician who developed the ADC’s vegan diet, because Goodman did
not raise a triable dispute as to whether she knew of the health issues that he
allegedly suffered due to the vegan diet. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994) (prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment only if they both know of
and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Johnson, the
ADC’s Facility Health Administrator, because Goodman did not raise a triable
dispute, first, as to whether she “participated in or directed [any] violations, or
knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them,” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), and second, as to whether Johnson’s inaction caused
him any harm, see Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (Eighth Amendment claim requires a
showing of harm caused by defendant’s deliberate indifference).
We do not consider Goodman’s contention that the district court erred in
denying an unspecified request for documents. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d
2
983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (declining to consider matters not
specifically raised and argued in the opening brief).
AFFIRMED.
3