Cecil Fairley v. Steve Shelton

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Cecil Fairley 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, and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Gower on Fairley’s claim arising out of the allegedly improper denial of his grievances because prisoners do not have a “constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334, F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Moreover, summary judgment was proper on Fairley’s claim that Gower and defendants Hoefel, Peters, Morrow, and Franke were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs because Fairley failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants were personally involved in a constitutional violation or whether their conduct caused any such violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory…