RHYMES v. Aranas, Dr.; et al., Defendants. (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Michael L. Rhymes appeals pro se from the district court's judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Dees v. County of San Diego, 960 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

The district court did not err by granting defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion. A review of the record shows that Rhymes failed to provide a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to conclude that defendants were personally involved in any constitutional violation or whether there was a causal connection between defendants’ conduct and any such violation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.