MEADOR v. DIAZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Gordon Dale MEADOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ralph DIAZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-16760

Decided: September 22, 2021

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Gordon Dale Meador, Soledad, CA, Pro Se. Anthony Tartaglio, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant - Appellee Ralph Diaz. William Chi-Shing Kwong, Attorney, AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Anthony Tartaglio, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant - Appellee California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

MEMORANDUM **

Gordon Dale Meador appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Meador failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official cannot be held liable for deliberate indifference “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”).

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law