Mahler

MEMORANDUM *

Robert Mahler sued William Gatten, a correctional counselor at the Federal Prison Camp (FPC) in Sheridan, Oregon, over Eighth Amendment violations he alleges he suffered while incarcerated at FPC. Gatten filed a motion for summary judgment in district court on grounds of quali-fled immunity. The district court denied the motion. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary to explain our decision.

In this appeal, Gatten provisionally concedes, as he must for this court to have jurisdiction, Mahler’s version of the facts. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 908 (9th Cir.2001); Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.1997). The question properly before us, then, is whether, after drawing all reasonable factual inferences in favor of Mahler, qualified immunity was appropriately denied.

In evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we first ask whether the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right. ~A constitutional violation would exist in this case if 1) Mahler’s medical need was a “serious need” and 2) Gatten responded to that need with “deliberate indifference.” We find a…