defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right
How later courts described this case
- defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right
- “For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right,” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENNIS WAYNE MIZE, No. 16-17074
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01558-MCE-
CKD
v.
S. TSENG, et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Dennis Wayne Mize appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity.
*
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). Mize’s request for oral
argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mize’s Eighth Amendment claim on
the basis of qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly
established law. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is
entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly
established constitutional right); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730,
739 (2002) (“For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must
be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is
doing violates that right.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Mize’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-17074