# Eric Brown v. Matthew Cate

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 21, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4527587

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 21, 2020
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/4527587

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIC LYNN BROWN, AKA Eric L. No. 17-15113
Brown,
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01905-LJO-MJS
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MATTHEW CATE; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Eric Lynn Brown 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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.

*
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).
2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,

1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We

may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d

1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Brown’s claims against Doe defendants and defendants Cate,

Clark, Johnson, and Lopez was proper, because it would not have been clear to

every reasonable official that Brown’s heightened exposure to Valley Fever 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, 1230-35 (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, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-15113

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4527587. Public record. Not legal advice.