Todd Hezlitt v. Charles Ryan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 3, 2024
• Docket: 23-15506
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 3 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TODD HEZLITT, No. 23-15506

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03021-ROS-ESW v.

CHARLES L. RYAN, individual capacity; MEMORANDUM* et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 1, 2024** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, BADE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Todd Hezlitt (“Hezlitt”) appeals the grant of summary judgment to

defendants in his Eighth Amendment claim based on injuries he suffered while

* 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). incarcerated. We review the summary judgment grant de novo, Buono v. Norton,

371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

Hezlitt needed to demonstrate that the deprivation he suffered was objectively

serious and also that the prison officials subjectively acted with a sufficiently

culpable state of mind by being deliberately indifferent to inmate safety. Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Negligent failure to protect a prisoner from

another inmate is not actionable. Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986). In

this case, one corrections officer left his post five minutes prior to the end of his

shift, but only after asking another to cover the post and also obtaining permission

from a supervisor (albeit possibly the wrong shift supervisor) to exit the

building. There is no evidence that any of the individual officers had prior

knowledge of problems between Hezlitt and his attacker, or any other general

information regarding a risk of inmate violence from such a short, covered absence

that would have led them to believe their actions created a substantial risk of serious

harm. Cf. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 726 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013)

(leaving entire floor completely unstaffed for three hours during staff meetings

created a substantial risk of serious harm to inmates).

On appeal, Hezlitt offers no argument pertaining to his claim that defendants

Ryan and Thompson “established a pattern and practice of allowing their staff to

flout the rules and leave their duty stations without permission in spite of written

2 policy without fear of consequences.” We, therefore, treat this claim as forfeited.

United States v. Salman, 792 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED.1

1 We address the remainder of Hezlitt’s claim in a sealed memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously herewith.