Maynard

Maynard v. Bonta

Good Law
244 F. App'x 147
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 25, 2007Nos. 05-55591, 05-55772California545 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Walter Maynard is a doctor who provides medical services to individuals covered under Medi-Cal, California’s state Medicaid program. After he was suspended from providing Medi-Cal services and had payment for services withheld for *149 more than a year, Maynard sued several State of California employees, all of whom work for state administrative offices responsible for monitoring Medi-Cal fraud. The district court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that Maynard had failed to adduce facts sufficient to establish liability against any of the named defendants. We affirm.

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” 1 Hydrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir.1989)). Because there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983, plaintiffs must show personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation. Bell v. Clackamas County, 341 F.3d 858 , 867 n. 3 (9th Cir.2003) (citing Jones v.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.