WILLIAM WALLACE, II V. FRANK LONGANO, No. 20-35670 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM JAMES MATHEW WALLACE II, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35670 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05330-RJB Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. FRANK LONGANO, Dr - WCC; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF WASHINGTON, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2021** Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. * 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). Former Washington state prisoner William James Mathew Wallace II appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and disability discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Wallace failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs resulting from his pre-existing injury to his foot. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must show deliberate indifference in order to demonstrate intentional discrimination under the ADA). AFFIRMED. 2 20-35670

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.