Harold Hunter v. A. Welchert ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD HUNTER, No. 08-55320
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-2484-MMM-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
A. WELCHERT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Harold Hunter, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
*
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).
tk/Research
officials improperly classified him, failed to provide him with mental health and
medical treatment, and subjected him to improper conditions of confinement. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunter’s
deliberate indifference claim concerning his treatment before his suicide attempt
because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the treatment
Hunter received was medically unacceptable. See id, at 1058 (“[T]o prevail on a
claim involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner must
show that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard for an excessive risk to the
prisoner’s health.”) (citation and internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunter’s Eighth
Amendment and due process claims concerning his placement on C-Status because
there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hunter suffered a
deprivation that would implicate a liberty interest or rise to an Eighth Amendment
violation. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (concluding that only
those deprivations that impose “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” are subject to due process review);
tk/Research 2 08-55320
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991) (explaining that “only those
deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are
sufficiently grave to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation”) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d
1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[A] prisoner has no constitutional right to a particular
classification status.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunter’s Eighth
Amendment and due process claims concerning his placement and treatment while
in the locked observation unit because Hunter did not make a material showing that
any defendant directed, participated in, or had knowledge of his alleged
mistreatment. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Liability
under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the
defendant.”)
AFFIRMED.
tk/Research 3 08-55320