Allen v. Daniels

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 23-3471
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAIWAN ALLEN, No. 23-3471 D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00524-CLB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CHARLES DANIELS; MICHAEL MINEV; ISIDRIS BACA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Carla Baldwin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted March 16, 2026***

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Taiwan Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). claims relating to a COVID-19 outbreak in prison. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Allen failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent to Allen’s risk of contracting COVID-19. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844 (1994) (a prison official cannot be held liable for

deliberate indifference “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive

risk to inmate health or safety”; officials may not be held liable “if they responded

reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Allen’s contention that Patricia

Smith was named as a party to the action.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-3471