Cason Cunningham v. Norm Kramer

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASON D. CUNNINGHAM, No. 17-15430 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01362-AWI-MJS

v.

MEMORANDUM*

NORM KRAMER, Ex-Director of Coalinga State Hospital; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

California civil detainee Cason D. Cunningham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)

*

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).

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cunningham’s Fourteenth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that detaining Cunningham in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever was endemic, 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, 1229-30 (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. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.