Bob Savage v. Suzan Hubbard , 519 F. App'x 498 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           MAY 21 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BOB SAVAGE,                                      No. 12-15931
    Plaintiff - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01346-LKK-
    JFM
    v.
    SUZAN HUBBARD, Warden; et al.,                   MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 14, 2013 **
    Before:         LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Bob Savage appeals pro se from the district court’s
    summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging federal and state law
    claims arising from being temporarily removed from a program under which meals
    *
    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).
    were delivered to him and other inmates in their cells. We have jurisdiction under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1983
    . 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 on Savage’s
    deliberate indifference claim because Savage failed to raise a genuine dispute of
    material fact as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded a
    serious risk of harm to his health when a prison doctor authorized Savage’s
    temporary removal from the in-cell meal program. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 834 (1994) (setting forth objective and subjective prongs of deliberate
    indifference claim); Toguchi, 
    391 F.3d at 1059-1060
     (neither conduct rising to the
    level of negligence nor inmate’s difference of opinion with physician is sufficient
    to establish deliberate indifference).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Savage’s equal
    protection claim because Savage failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
    defendants intentionally treated him differently from other, similarly-situated
    inmates, and whether any such difference in treatment was not rationally related to
    valid penological interests. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr.,
    Inc., 
    473 U.S. 432
    , 439 (1985) (setting forth elements of equal protection claim).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment on Savage’s claims
    2                                       12-15931
    under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of
    the Rehabilitation Act because Savage failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
    defendants knew that removing him from the in-cell meal program would likely
    harm any federally protected right, and that they failed to act upon that likelihood.
    See Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 
    260 F.3d 1124
    , 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting
    forth test for intentional discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act),
    Issues raised in Savage’s brief that are not supported by argument—such as
    the partial dismissal of his remaining claims; the dismissal of his state law claims
    because the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and the
    denials of his motions for discovery, a preliminary injunction, the appointment of
    counsel, and other relief—are deemed abandoned. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 
    7 F.3d 139
    , 144 (9th Cir. 1992).
    Savage’s remaining contentions regarding defendants’ alleged submission of
    unsigned declarations and the district court’s allegedly erroneous denial of his
    request for a directed verdict are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    12-15931
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-15931

Citation Numbers: 519 F. App'x 498

Judges: Leavy, Murguia, Thomas

Filed Date: 5/21/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023