United States v. 2020-08-11 | 19-15985 | ALEJANDRO PRADO V. GARY SWARTHOUT | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO PRADO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

J. JIMENEZ, Lieutenant; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 19-15985

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01866-WBS-DB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Alejandro Prado appeals pro se from the district

*
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

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15985
court’s summary judgment in his action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam
Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Prado’s ADA
claim because Prado failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his disability. See Duvall v. County of
Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (to recover monetary damages
under the ADA, a plaintiff must show intentional discrimination; the test for
intentional discrimination is deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Prado’s Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim because Prado failed to raise a triable
dispute as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to
Prado’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994)
(explaining that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if the prison
official “knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards
that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Prado’s equal
protection claim because Prado failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based on his

3 19-15985
disability. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123
(9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth requirements of an equal protection claim, including
that the defendant must act with a discriminatory intent or purpose based upon
membership in a protected class).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.