Telly Alexander Heath v. Greg Jones;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TELLY ALEXANDER HEATH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GREG JONES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JOAN BARTON,
Defendant.
No. 15-35211
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01875-MA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Telly Alexander Heath, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-35211
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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 because Heath failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health needs by housing him in the
Disciplinary Segregation Unit, Intensive Management Unit, or Behavioral Health
Unit. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately
indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an
inmate’s health). Further, Heath failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether his placement in these units denied him the “minimal civilized
measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).
Heath’s motion for appellees’ default is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --