DocketNumber: 21-15243
Filed Date: 4/19/2022
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/19/2022
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOUGLAS WAYNE DERELLO, Jr., AKA No. 21-15243 Douglas Wayne Derello, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03575-MTL-JFM Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* SANCHEZ, AKA Felicia Sanchez, Sgt.; HARRIS, AKA Nathaniel Harris, Sgt.; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as John Doe (DW), Deputy Warden, SMI #1; JACKSON, named as CO II Jackson; T. LEWIS, #12271, Correctional Officer; IGWE, AKA Dorothy Igwe, Nurse Practitioner at South Unit; named as Dorothy Igwe, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. * 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 state prisoner Douglas Wayne Derello appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under28 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 to defendant Igwe because Derello failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Igwe was deliberately indifferent to Derello’s gout. Seeid. at 1060-61
(deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health). The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendant Harris because Derello failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Harris retaliated against Derello. See Rhodes v. Robinson,408 F.3d 559
, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context). AFFIRMED. 2 21-15243