DAVID SHANK V. CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, No. 16-16773 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 5 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID JEROLD SHANK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16773 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02572-PGR v. MEMORANDUM* CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, Health Services Provider at A.S.P.C. Florence East Unit; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. David Jerold Shank, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). 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 because Shank failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his prostate condition. See Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013) (supervisors can only be liable under § 1983 if they are personally involved in a constitutional deprivation or if they implement a constitutionally deficient policy); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (municipal liability applies to suits against private entities under § 1983 if the entity acts under color of state law and the violation is caused by a policy, practice, or custom of the entity); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference entails a purposeful act or failure to respond and harm caused by the act or failure to respond). 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). We reject as unsupported by the record Shank’s contentions that defendant Ryan perjured himself, that defendant Ryan’s attorney perpetrated perjury, and that Judge Rosenblatt was biased and prejudiced against Shank. AFFIRMED. 2 16-16773
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
