Harris v. Centurion of Arizona, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 23-1809
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DWOINE ANTONIO HARRIS, No. 23-1809 D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00547-RCC Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CENTURION OF ARIZONA, LLC; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as Pima County Jail Medical Director Liaison; KEITH WILLIAMS, Dr., M.D., Centurion; KAREN SMITH, RN/LPN, Centurion,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Dwoine Antonio Harris appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

* 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). judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical care while he

was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir.

2021). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Centurion because

Harris failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether medical

providers were deliberately indifferent in responding to his medical needs. See

Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth

objective deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment inadequate

medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees); see also Lockett v. County of

Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that a claim against an

entity under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978),

requires a plaintiff to show an underlying constitutional violation).

Harris’s motion for review (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-1809