Mitchell Fields v. Bruce Bannister

MEMORANDUM

Mitchell Fields, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging numerous constitutional violations, and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (summary-judgment); Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003) (exhaustion). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Summary judgment was proper on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against defendants Bannister and Skolnik because Fields failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their actions amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (to be deliberately indifferent, a prison official must “know[ ] of and disregard! ] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989) (a difference of opinion about the best…