Rashidian v. Willis

Ninth Circuit

Rashidian v. Willis

329 F. App'x 177

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 28, 2009

DocketNo. 07-55371

StatusPublished

This text of 329 F. App'x 177 (Rashidian v. Willis) 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

Rashidian v. Willis, 329 F. App'x 177 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Hassan Rashidian appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his Bivens action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety while he was a detainee at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service Processing Center. We have jurisdiction under 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 to defendant Reelosa-do because Rashidian failed to raise a triable issue as to whether Reclosado knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Rashidian’s health or safety. See Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir.2002); see also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1264 (9th Cir.1993) (discussing circumstances under which a nonmoving party may not substitute an affidavit alleging helpful facts for earlier deposition testimony harmful to its case in order to avoid summary judgment).

[178]*178Rashidian’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

**

Hassan Rashidian appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his Bivens action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety while he was a detainee at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service Processing Center. We have jurisdiction under 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 to defendant Reelosa-do because Rashidian failed to raise a triable issue as to whether Reclosado knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Rashidian’s health or safety. See Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir.2002); see also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1264 (9th Cir.1993) (discussing circumstances under which a nonmoving party may not substitute an affidavit alleging helpful facts for earlier deposition testimony harmful to its case in order to avoid summary judgment).

[178]*178Rashidian’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada

290 F.3d 1175 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Robert Eugene Beene v. Cal A. Terhune James Nielson Roger Schaufel J.M. Widener, Parole Agent

380 F.3d 1149 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F. App'x 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rashidian-v-willis-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack