Todd Hezlitt v. Charles L. Ryan, individual capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TODD HEZLITT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, individual capacity;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15506
D.C. No.
2:18-cv-03021-ROS-ESW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 1, 2024**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS, BADE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Todd Hezlitt (“Hezlitt”) appeals the grant of summary judgment to
defendants in his Eighth Amendment claim based on injuries he suffered while
* 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
APR 3 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
incarcerated. We review the summary judgment grant de novo, Buono v. Norton,
371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
Hezlitt needed to demonstrate that the deprivation he suffered was objectively
serious and also that the prison officials subjectively acted with a sufficiently
culpable state of mind by being deliberately indifferent to inmate safety. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Negligent failure to protect a prisoner from
another inmate is not actionable. Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986). In
this case, one corrections officer left his post five minutes prior to the end of his
shift, but only after asking another to cover the post and also obtaining permission
from a supervisor (albeit possibly the wrong shift supervisor) to exit the
building. There is no evidence that any of the individual officers had prior
knowledge of problems between Hezlitt and his attacker, or any other general
information regarding a risk of inmate violence from such a short, covered absence
that would have led them to believe their actions created a substantial risk of serious
harm. Cf. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 726 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013)
(leaving entire floor completely unstaffed for three hours during staff meetings
created a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates).
On appeal, Hezlitt offers no argument pertaining to his claim that defendants
Ryan and Thompson “established a pattern and practice of allowing their staff to
flout the rules and leave their duty stations without permission in spite of written

-- 2 of 3 --

3
policy without fear of consequences.” We, therefore, treat this claim as forfeited.
United States v. Salman, 792 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.1
1 We address the remainder of Hezlitt’s claim in a sealed memorandum disposition
filed contemporaneously herewith.

-- 3 of 3 --