William Cameron v. Elizabeth Rantz;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM CAMERON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ELIZABETH RANTZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-35563
D.C. No. 6:08-cv-00042-DWM-
RKS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Montana state prisoner William Cameron appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
FILED
NOV 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-35563 2
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity because Cameron failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease and other serious medical needs. See Rodriguez v.
Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir. 2010) (a defendant
is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation); Toguchi,
391 F.3d at 1056-60 (discussing deliberate indifference standard); see also Nelson
v. Pima Cmty. Coll., 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[M]ere allegation and
speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment.”).
Cameron’s appeal of the denial of his motions for preliminary injunctive
relief is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450
(9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial
of preliminary injunction would have no practical consequences, and the issue is
therefore moot).
Cameron’s remaining contentions, including those concerning alleged
judicial bias and discovery matters, are unpersuasive.
Cameron’s “request to include supplemental affidavit-declaration to

-- 2 of 3 --

10-35563 3
Plaintiff’s oversized brief,” and the relief requested therein, filed on March 17,
2011, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --