Michael Edward Harke v. Ada County Sheriffs;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL EDWARD HARKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ADA COUNTY SHERIFFS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-35993
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00018-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Former Ada County Jail inmate Michael Edward Harke appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
Ada County and its officials violated his constitutional rights. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling
FILED
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 --

on cross-motions for summary judgment, Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County
of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to Ada County and its
officials because Harke failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his safety or serious
medical needs when they inadvertently distributed used razors to detainees. See
Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2010) (prison
officials can only be liable where pretrial detainee shows that officials knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to pretrial detainee’s health or safety; showing of
medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional
deprivation); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637
F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must
set forth non-speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory
allegations.”).
We reject as without merit Harke’s arguments that the district court failed to
rule on his status as a non-prisoner, or that the district court improperly assigned
his action to a district judge.
13-35993 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We do not consider issues and arguments incorporated by reference on
appeal. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
13-35993 3

-- 3 of 3 --