Brandyn William Gayler v. State of Nevada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRANDYN WILLIAM GAYLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA; B. SANDOVAL;
JAMES DZURENDA; COX; B.
WILLIAMS; NEVENS; J. HOWELL; D.
WILSON; STROUD; J. NASH; BARTH;
HESSLER; ESTILLE; J. GARCIA;
FRENCH; SEMA; RULAN; AUGUSTINE;
MARTIN; NORMAN; FLORES;
LINFORD; PROVOCIAL; B. YEATES;
GREGORY COX; DWIGHT NEVENS;
BRIAN WILLIAMS, Warden; JERRY
HOWELL, Warden; DUANE WILSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-17028
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00431-JCM-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
* 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
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-17028
Nevada state prisoner Brandyn William Gayler appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference and other constitutional 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Brian
Williams, Dwane Wilson, Jennifer Nash, and Jerry Howell on Gayler’s deliberate
indifference claim because Gayler failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether these defendants were personally involved in any constitutional
violations or engaged in any wrongful acts causally connected to any constitutional
violations. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a
supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the
constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the
supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)). The generalized information in Gayler’s
grievances was insufficient to make defendants aware of any intentional tampering
with his food. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official
cannot be held liable for deliberate indifference “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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-17028
serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --