William Wallace, II v. Frank Longano ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM JAMES MATHEW WALLACE No. 20-35670
II,
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05330-RJB
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
FRANK LONGANO, Dr - WCC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF
WASHINGTON,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, 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).
Former Washington state prisoner William James Mathew Wallace II
appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs and disability discrimination. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling
on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085,
1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because Wallace failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs resulting from his
pre-existing injury to his foot. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th
Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be
aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); Duvall v. County
of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must show deliberate
indifference in order to demonstrate intentional discrimination under the ADA).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-35670