Michael Lenoir Smith v. YATES, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
YATES, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15528
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01547-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Lenoir Smith appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of
* 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
JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary
judgment); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court’s
decision on qualified immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis of
qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable
official that housing Smith in prisons in the Central Valley, where Valley Fever is
endemic, was unlawful under the circumstances. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S.
731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); Hines v.
Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2019) (existing Valley Fever cases did
not clearly establish a “right to be free from heightened exposure to Valley Fever
spores”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --