FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9418189
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Lee Swafford v. Jason Rohrer

No. 9418189 · Decided August 4, 2023
No. 9418189 · Ninth Circuit · 2023 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
August 4, 2023
Citation
No. 9418189
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEE SWAFFORD, AKA Swafford Lee, No. 22-16498 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00721-DAD-AC v. MEMORANDUM* JASON ROHRER, Defendant-Appellee, and R. NEUSHMID, Warden; T. WAMBLE; OLLER, R.N.; BUCKER, C.O.; JOHNSON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 18, 2023** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Lee Swafford appeals pro se from the district * 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). 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. Cortez v. Skol, 776 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Swafford failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rohrer was deliberately indifferent to Swafford’s serious medical needs by denying Swafford’s requests for a lower bunk accommodation. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard” requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We treat Swafford’s motion (Docket Entry No. 22) as a motion to file a supplemental brief and grant the motion. The Clerk will file the brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 16. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16498
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2023 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2023 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Lee Swafford v. Jason Rohrer in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on August 4, 2023.
Use the citation No. 9418189 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →