HOWELL v. ALLEN (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

David Howell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for Appellees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, on de novo review, Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509, 515 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm.

1. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Howell's deliberate indifference claims. As to Sheriff Allen, the record lacks evidence of his knowledge of the roof construction work, defeating this claim. See Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (to establish deliberate indifference claim, must demonstrate “the defendant made an intentional decision” on confinement conditions). As to Officers Smith and Hagan, summary judgment was appropriate as Howell failed to establish their behavior rose to the level of deliberate indifference that caused him to fall ill. See id. (causation must be established for deliberate indifference claim to succeed).

2. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Howell's equal protection clause claim against Smith and Hagan, as the record does not establish Smith and Hagan intentionally treated Howell differently than similarly situated individuals. See Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030–31 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming summary judgment where no evidence that officers treated the appellant differently than others in relevant class); Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 660 (9th Cir. 2012) (for class of one theory, individual must establish less favorable treatment than others generally).

AFFIRMED.