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
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN PATRICK KELLY, No. 11-18070
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02711-PGR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNKNOWN MANRIQUEZ, CO II,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
John Patrick Kelly, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a photo was
taken of his genitals during a medical procedure without his consent. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
*
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).
dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity. Kwai Fun Wong v. United States,
373 F.3d 952, 966 n.18 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kelly’s action because defendant is
entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Kelly’s claim that defendant’s
conduct violated Kelly’s Eighth Amendment rights. 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).
We do not consider matters neither developed in the district court nor
specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-18070