NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM JAMES MATHEW WALLACE No. 20-35670

II,

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05330-RJB Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

FRANK LONGANO, Dr - WCC; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF

WASHINGTON,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Former Washington state prisoner William James Mathew Wallace II

appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs and disability discrimination. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s ruling

on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085,

1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants

because Wallace failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs resulting from his

pre-existing injury to his foot. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th

Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be

aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health); Duvall v. County

of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must show deliberate

indifference in order to demonstrate intentional discrimination under the ADA).

AFFIRMED.

2 20-35670