RIVERS v. SANDHU (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

California state civil detainee Steve Rivers appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Rivers failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendants’ conduct substantially departed from the accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards sufficient to establish a prima facia constitutional violation. See Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 443 (9th Cir. 2016) (under Fourteenth Amendment professional judgment standard that applies to civil detainees, a professional’s decision is presumptively valid and liability may be imposed only when the decision is a substantial departure from the accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards).

We do not consider facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Rivers’s motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.

AFFIRMED.