Calderon v. Vue

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN CRISTOBAL CALDERON, No. 24-5976 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00124-DAD-CKD Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* C. VUE; R. FREITAS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

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

California state prisoner Juan Cristobal Calderon appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We vacate

* 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). and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Vue,

concluding that Calderon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether Vue assaulted him. However, the district court improperly disregarded

Calderon’s declaration as self-serving and uncorroborated, despite the fact that

Calderon’s declaration was not conclusory and gave a factual account of his own

experience. See Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 784 F.3d 495, 497-98 (9th Cir.

2015) (explaining that the district court cannot disregard a declaration at the

summary judgment stage solely based on its self-serving nature, even if it is

uncorroborated, unless it “states only conclusions and not facts that would be

admissible evidence”); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255

(1986) (explaining that “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and

the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of

a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment”). We vacate the summary

judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Calderon’s motion (Docket Entry No. 24) for miscellaneous relief is denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 24-5976