George O. Mitchell v. State of Washington

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE O. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON; LESLIE
SZIEBERT, Dr, Washington State Special
Commitment Center Chief Medical Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35251
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05226-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
George O. Mitchell, who is civilly committed in the State of Washington at
the Special Commitment Center, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutionally inadequate
* 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).
FILED
APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35251
medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of
San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Sziebert on
Mitchell’s claim of constitutionally inadequate medical care because Mitchell
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sziebert had
knowledge of or acquiesced in any unconstitutional conduct by subordinates. See
Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 443-44 (9th Cir. 2016) (Fourteenth
Amendment professional judgment standard applies to civil detainees); see also
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323 (1982) (under the professional judgment
standard, a professional’s decision is presumptively valid, and liability may be
imposed only where there is a “substantial departure from accepted professional
judgment, practice, or standards”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.
2011) (requirements for supervisory liability under § 1983).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --