MITCHELL v. WASHINGTON (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

George O. Mitchell, who is civilly committed in the State of Washington at the Special Commitment Center, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo 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 Sziebert on Mitchell’s claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care because Mitchell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sziebert had knowledge of or acquiesced in any unconstitutional conduct by subordinates. See Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 443-44 (9th Cir. 2016) (Fourteenth Amendment professional judgment standard applies to civil detainees); see also Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982) (under the professional judgment standard, a professional’s decision is presumptively valid, and liability may be imposed only where there is a “substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for supervisory liability under § 1983).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.