John Stewart v. King County Jail
Appeal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 09-35900

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
Request Update Request UpdateSpaceE-Mail Alert Get E-Mail Alerts

Space Space

  Text Tab Overlap Citations (6) Tab Overlap Cited By (1) Right End
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN M. STEWART, No. 09-35900
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00003-JLR

v.
MEMORANDUM *
KING COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant,

and KING COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*
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).

Washington state prisoner John M. Stewart appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stewart's claims against King County because he failed to allege sufficient facts showing that a specific county policy or custom was "the moving force" behind the alleged unconstitutional conduct. Gibson v. Cnty. of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2002).

The district court properly dismissed Stewart's claims against supervisory prison officials Holtgeerts, Karlsson, and Fleming because Stewart made only vague and conclusory allegations regarding their personal participation in the deprivation of Stewart's constitutional rights. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) ("A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them."); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) ("[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient" to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). [End Page 2 09-35900]

The district court properly dismissed Stewart's deliberate indifference claims against defendants Ashbaugh, Stuver, Burach, Morey, S. Phillips, Hancock, Starks, Chan, Pace, and Lee because Stewart failed to allege sufficient facts showing that these defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health and safety when they ignored Stewart's request for dental care, resulting in some unspecified delay in treatment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) ("deliberate indifference" is evidenced only when "the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety"); Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir. 1989) ("[D]elay in providing a prisoner with dental treatment, standing alone, does not constitute an eighth amendment violation.").

We do not consider Stewart's claims not adequately raised on appeal. See Entm't Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997).

We deny Stewart's two motions to file supplements to his brief.

Stewart's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

[End Page 3 09-35900]

Statistics

This case has been viewed 14 times.

No comments have been added yet. Sign in to post a comment.
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?