MICHAEL HAYES V. TYLER NICODEMUS, No. 21-35037 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 23 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL T. HAYES, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-35037 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00226-BLW MEMORANDUM* TYLER NICODEMUS, Sgt., Defendant-Appellee, and MATTHEW LEE ALEXANDER, 103811; TERRY RASAR, 110719; ADAM MILLER, Sgt.; WALTON, Corporal; JOHN MCMAHON; BROWN, C865, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, 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). Idaho state prisoner Michael T. Hayes appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging failure-toprotect. 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 defendant Nicodemus because Hayes failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Nicodemus was deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to Hayes’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if the prison official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hayes’s motions to strike because Hayes did not demonstrate grounds to strike Nicodemus’s motion for summary judgment or opposition to Hayes’s motion to strike. See United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672 F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review). AFFIRMED. 2 21-35037

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.