# Eric Duarte v. Martyn Bevan

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 22, 2009 · 359 F. App'x 883

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3030858

## Case

- **Full name:** Eric DUARTE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Harpreet GILL; Martyn Bevan, Defendants—Appellees, and Laura Smith, Et Al., Defendants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 22, 2009
- **Citations:** 359 F. App'x 883
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Goodwin, Wallace, Fisher
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3030858

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC DUARTE, No. 08-17332

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:05-cv-01374-JF

v.
MEMORANDUM *
HARPREET GILL; MARTYN BEVAN,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LAURA SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 2009 **

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Eric Duarte, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment arising from inadequate and

delayed medical treatment following a foot injury suffered while he was playing

handball in the prison recreational yard. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291. We review de novo a district court’s summary judgment. Morrison v. Hall,

261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.

The district court properly entered summary judgment because Duarte failed

to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact that either defendants Gill or

Bevan acted with deliberate indifference by requiring him to walk, at times

unassisted, on his broken foot. See Conn v. City of Reno, 572 F.3d 1047, 1055–56

(9th Cir. 2009). There is insufficient evidence from which an inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed by requiring Duarte to walk

relatively short distances on his injured foot. Moreover, the evidence is

insufficient to support a finding that either Gill or Bevan actually believed that

there was a substantial risk of serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994). Thus, Duarte failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact regarding

either defendants’ subjective awareness of a substantial risk of serious harm. See

Conn, 572 F.3d at 1056; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105 (1976).

2
Moreover, there is insufficient evidence that either Gill or Bevan failed to respond

adequately to Duarte’s condition. See Conn, 572 F.3d at 1056, 1058. Duarte was

seen by the prison nurse within one hour after his injury, and was examined and

treated at the hospital the next day.

Duarte’s failure to satisfy his burden of showing that Gill was subjectively

aware of a serious medical need, or that he failed to respond adequately to Duarte’s

injury, entitles Gill to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).

Moreover, because the evidence is similarly deficient as to Bevan, Duarte has

failed to demonstrate a triable issue that Bevan’s conduct violated the Eighth

Amendment. Therefore, the district court properly held that Bevan was entitled to

qualified immunity. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3030858. Public record. Not legal advice.
