MICHAEL ELLIS V. CORIZON INCORPORATED, No. 18-17015 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL ELLIS, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-17015 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00536-SPL v. MEMORANDUM* CORIZON INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, and KAREN BARCKLAY; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Michael Ellis appeals pro se from the district court’s * 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). summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference in the treatment of his skin condition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ellis’s claims against defendants Barclay-Dodson, Devon, Myers, and Johnson because Ellis failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ellis’s deliberate indifference claim against defendant Corizon Inc. because Ellis failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any policy or custom of Corizon Inc. caused him to suffer a constitutional injury. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (a 2 18-17015 private entity is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the entity acted under color of state law and the constitutional violation was caused by the entity’s official policy or custom). AFFIRMED. 3 18-17015

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.