WILLIE BAILEY, III V. J WEDELL, No. 10-17750 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIE BAILEY, III, No. 10-17750 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02067-GEBEFB v. MEMORANDUM * J. WEDELL; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 6, 2012 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Willie Bailey, III, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bailey failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Penner, Turella, or Howard were involved in or had any control over ordering, scheduling, or performing the relevant surgeries. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983; plaintiff must show personal involvement in alleged violations); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) ( A person deprives another of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)). Bailey s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 10-17750

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.