existing Valley Fever cases did not clearly establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores”
How later courts described this case
- existing Valley Fever cases did not clearly establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever spores”
- dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CASON D. CUNNINGHAM, No. 17-15430
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01362-AWI-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NORM KRAMER, Ex-Director of Coalinga
State Hospital; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California civil detainee Cason D. Cunningham appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
*
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).
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557,
560-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cunningham’s Fourteenth Amendment
conditions-of-confinement claim because it would not have been clear to every
reasonable official that detaining Cunningham in the Central Valley, where Valley
Fever was endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances. See Ashcroft v. al-
Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity);
Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2019) (existing Valley Fever
cases did not clearly establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to
Valley Fever spores”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2