Steve Rivers v. Jagsir S. Sandhu, M.d.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVE RIVERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAGSIR S. SANDHU, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16001
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00276-LJO-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state civil detainee Steve Rivers appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate
medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian
* 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
JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16001
Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because Rivers failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the
defendants’ conduct substantially departed from the accepted professional
judgment, practice, or standards sufficient to establish a prima facia constitutional
violation. See Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 443 (9th Cir. 2016) (under
Fourteenth Amendment professional judgment standard that applies to civil
detainees, a professional’s decision is presumptively valid and liability may be
imposed only when the decision is a substantial departure from the accepted
professional judgment, practice, or standards).
We do not consider facts not presented to the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Rivers’s motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --