GORDON SEES THE GROUND, Jr. v. C. C. Emerson; Corrections Corporation of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GORDON SEES THE GROUND, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. C. EMERSON; CORRECTIONS
CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-35733
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00044-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Gordon Sees the Ground, Jr., a Montana state prisoner, 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.
FILED
SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and
we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Emerson because
plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Emerson
was deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth
Amendment . . . 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.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Corrections
Corporation of America because plaintiff did not establish a constitutional
violation by Emerson. See City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986)
(per curiam).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Affidavit and Relief, filed on November 3,
2014, and his Motion for Extension of Time, filed on November 21, 2014, are
denied. Plaintiff’s request in his reply brief to reject the answering brief is also
denied because the answering brief was timely filed.
AFFIRMED.
13-35733 2

-- 2 of 2 --