KAREEM HOWELL, AKA Kareem J. Howell v. C. TRAN, Correctional Officer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAREEM HOWELL, AKA Kareem J.
Howell,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C. TRAN, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15494
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05377-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Kareem Howell, AKA Kareem J. Howell, a California state prisoner,
appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference claims arising out of his
three-month stay in Santa Clara County jail. We have jurisdiction 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
APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15494
§ 1291. We review de novo. Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864, 870 (9th
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Tran
and Mahaffey on Howell’s deliberate indifference claims arising out of their
decisions to deny or delay mental health treatment on September 1 and 14, 2015
because Howell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the
denial or delay of mental health treatment on either of those days resulted in any
harm. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner
alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that the
delay caused significant harm); see also Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1217-18
(9th Cir. 2014) (no evidence of deliberate indifference where there were extensive
medical records documenting the defendant’s treatment by prison mental health
professionals).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Tran on
Howell’s deliberate indifference claim arising out of the cell-covering incident on
September 14, 2015 on the basis of qualified immunity because it was not clearly
established that Tran’s conduct violated the Eighth Amendment. See Ashcroft v.
al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (discussing qualified immunity and noting that
a right is clearly established only if “every reasonable official would have
understood that what he is doing violates that right” (citation and internal quotation

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15494
marks omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Mahaffey on
Howell’s excessive force claim because Howell failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Mahaffey pepper-sprayed or punched him during a cell
extraction. See Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528, 537
(9th Cir. 2010) (explaining framework for analyzing an excessive force claim); see
also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing parties tell two
different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no
reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts
for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”).
We reject as meritless Howell’s contentions that the district court improperly
gave defendants legal advice, should not have permitted defendants to file a second
summary judgment motion, and should not have ordered defendants to submit
Howell’s medical records.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, or 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.

-- 3 of 3 --