Branson v. Fairman

Ninth Circuit

Branson v. Fairman

177 F. App'x 627

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2006

DocketNo. 05-16160

StatusPublished

This text of 177 F. App'x 627 (Branson v. Fairman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Branson v. Fairman, 177 F. App'x 627 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Randy Robert Branson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Branson’s deliberate indifference claims concerning his dental care because Branson failed to present evidence that the named defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to Branson’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

Summary judgment was proper on Branson’s First Amendment claims because he failed to allege he was prevented from sending and receiving mail. See Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 933 (9th Cir.1988).

Summary judgment was also proper on Brandon’s claims against supervising officials because he failed to allege that they personally participated in any constitutional violation. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (section 1983 supervisory liability arises only upon a showing of personal participation by defendant).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Randy Robert Branson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Beene v. Terhune, 380 F.3d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Branson’s deliberate indifference claims concerning his dental care because Branson failed to present evidence that the named defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to Branson’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

Summary judgment was proper on Branson’s First Amendment claims because he failed to allege he was prevented from sending and receiving mail. See Learned v. City of Bellevue, 860 F.2d 928, 933 (9th Cir.1988).

Summary judgment was also proper on Brandon’s claims against supervising officials because he failed to allege that they personally participated in any constitutional violation. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir.2001) (section 1983 supervisory liability arises only upon a showing of personal participation by defendant).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 F. App'x 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branson-v-fairman-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack