STEVE CHENNAULT V. MORRIS, No. 16-55878 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 5 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVE W. CHENNAULT, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55878 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00854-BTM-KSC v. MEMORANDUM* MORRIS, Registered Dietician, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Steve W. Chennault appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. 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. * 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). The district court properly granted summary judgment because Chennault failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Appellee was deliberately indifferent in providing care following Chennault’s tonsillectomy or otherwise personally participated in the deprivation of his constitutional rights. See id. at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (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)). AFFIRMED. 2 16-55878

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.