Martin v. Fuller-Brisbon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 24-404
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DUSTIN ROBERT MARTIN, No. 24-404 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02083-GMN-EJY Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM* MIGUEL FULLER-BRISBON; JAMES BUCKLEY,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Defendants-appellants appeal from the district court’s interlocutory order

denying their motion to dismiss, on the basis of qualified immunity, Dustin Robert

Martin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a failure-to-protect claim. We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the collateral order doctrine. Garraway v.

Ciufo, 113 F.4th 1210, 1216 (9th Cir. 2024). We review de novo. Dunn v. Castro,

621 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly denied qualified immunity because Martin

alleged facts sufficient to show that defendants-appellants knew of and disregarded

an objective risk of serious harm to Martin, and defendants-appellants’ actions

contravened clearly established law at the time of the incident. See Labatad v.

Corr. Corp. of Am., 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth

requirements to show violation of Eighth Amendment duty to protect prisoners);

Dunn, 621 F.3d at 1199 (setting forth requirements for qualified immunity to

apply); Robinson v. Prunty, 249 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that it is

unlawful under the Eighth Amendment to be aware of and disregard the risk of

violent outbreaks from placing certain inmates together, and this unlawfulness was

clearly established).

Martin's motion (Docket Entry No. 23) for an extension of time to file the

answering brief is denied as unnecessary because the answering brief was

submitted at Docket Entry No. 20. The clerk will file the briefs submitted at

Docket Entry Nos. 20 and 24.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-404