George Leslie Vontress v. State of Nevada

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE LESLIE VONTRESS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA; JAMES
DZURENDA; D. W. NEVENS; JO
GENTRY, Warden, Warden; FRANK
DREESON; PENA; DAMIEN
HENNINGER; T. THOMAS, Warden; D.
MARR; C. FULLER; RACHEAL
WILLIAMS; SDCC; HDSP; SCC; CORE
CIVIC; SCC MEDICAL STAFF, Does; E.
PROVENCAL, Lt.; ARANUS, Dr.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15666
D.C. No.
2:18-cv-01746-RFB-BNW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2023**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

George Vontress appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants in his prisoner civil rights action. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the grant of summary
judgment de novo, Jett v Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006), and affirm.
The district court correctly applied the summary judgment standard,
identified the relevant material facts, and gave specific reasons orally in open court
for granting summary judgment for each claim.
Summary judgment was proper for Warden Neven on the procedural due
process claim because the appellant failed to offer evidence to establish that the
warden was aware of or directly involved in the proceedings. See Maxwell v.
County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075, 1086 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that
supervisors cannot be liable for civil rights violations unless they “participated in
or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent
them”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Summary judgment was proper for Dr. Pena, Warden Thomas, and Nurse
Practitioner Fuller on the claims alleging deliberate indifference to the appellant’s
medical needs. At most, arguably, the appellant established differences of medical
opinion or negligence. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004)
(holding that a difference of medical opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate
2

-- 2 of 3 --

indifference); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (holding that mere negligence does not rise to
the level of deliberate indifference).1
Appellant’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. Entry No. 5) is DENIED.
Appellant’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Dkt. Entry No. 32) is DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED.
1We decline to consider issues not raised by appellant in his opening brief.
See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005) (“an issue is
waived when the appellant does not specifically and distinctly argue the issue in
his or her opening brief.”).
3

-- 3 of 3 --