JOHN R. JORDAN, Jr. v. D. J. Brown

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN R. JORDAN, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
D. J. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
J. BOITANO; T. COBB; J. COX; R.
DREITH; J. EDER; T. FELKER; B.
FLEMING; K. MCCRAW; D.
MCGUIRE; S. PECK; S. PLATT; J.
ROHLFING; D. VANDERVILLE; R.
MIRANDA; S. ARMOSKUS; K. KOPEC;
D. FLETCHER,
Defendants.
No. 10-17373
D.C. No. 2:03-cv-01820-LKK-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding
FILED
DEC 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
Submitted December 4, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
In this pro se action, defendant Lieutenant Donald J. Brown appeals the
denial of his motion for summary judgment on his qualified-immunity defense.
We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985), and review the immunity questions
de novo, CarePartners, LLC v. Lashway, 545 F.3d 867, 875–76 (9th Cir. 2008).
We reverse the district court’s order denying summary judgment and remand this
case for further proceedings in light of this court’s disposition.
Brown is entitled to qualified immunity either if plaintiff John R. Jordan’s
facts fail to “make out a violation of a constitutional right” or if the allegedly
violated right was not “clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged
misconduct.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Because Jordan has failed to show that Brown subjectively inferred a
“substantial risk” that subordinates would misinterpret his order issued on
November 30, 2002, and thereby cause “serious harm,” Jordan’s facts fall short of

-- 2 of 4 --

3
stating a constitutional violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834–40 (1994)
(defining deliberate indifference). The facts as found below establish, at most,
mere negligence. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)
(negligence does not establish deliberate indifference).
Jordan also contends that Brown engaged in fraudulent concealment, has
“unclean hands,” and breached a contract. These claims have no merit.
Jordan’s motion to correct his brief, received on May 11, 2011, is granted.
Jordan’s requests for judicial notice are denied. Jordan’s motion filed on
November 30, 2012, is denied.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 4 --

Jordan v. Brown; No. 10-17373
THOMAS, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Drawing the inferences in favor of the non-moving party, as we must in
reviewing a summary judgment order, I agree with the magistrate judge’s analysis
contained in her Report and Recommendation dated June 30, 2010. Therefore, I
would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity at this stage of the
litigation.
FILED
DEC 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 4 of 4 --