Luis Duran v. Gail Lewis;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS DURAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GAIL LEWIS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17057
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00468-AWI-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Luis Duran appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v.
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
* 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
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Duran’s action because it would not
have been clear to every reasonable official that housing Duran 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, 1230-35 (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).
Duran’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --