Gabriel John Bradway v. YASHODARA RAO, Chief Dr. of Mental Health, E.O.P

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL JOHN BRADWAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
YASHODARA RAO, Chief Dr. of Mental
Health, E.O.P,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16356
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00436-DAD-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gabriel John Bradway appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
claims arising from his mental health treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
* 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 27 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16356
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bradway’s
deliberate indifference claim because Bradway failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant Rao acted with deliberate indifference by
declining to intervene to prevent Bradway’s assignment to a double cell or was
otherwise personally involved in any alleged constitutional violation. 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”); Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th
Cir. 2016) (“To show deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must show that the
course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of
an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.” (alteration, citation, and internal
quotation marks omitted)); 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)).
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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16356
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --