`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`FEB 24 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`RICHARD ROY SCOTT,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`VAN HOOK,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`No. 23-35152
`
`
`D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05785-RBL
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Washington
`Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted February 18, 2025**
`
`SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
`
`Washington state civil detainee Richard Roy Scott appeals pro se from the
`
`Before:
`
`district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
`
`Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
`
`We review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian
`
`
`*
` 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
`
`
`
`The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant on
`
`Scott’s claims of constitutionally inadequate medical care, unsafe conditions, and
`
`inadequate food because Scott failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
`
`to whether defendant’s conduct fell below the professional judgment standard and
`
`whether he was not provided adequate food. See Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d
`
`436, 443 (9th Cir. 2016) (under Fourteenth Amendment professional judgment
`
`standard that applies to civil detainees, a professional’s decision is presumptively
`
`valid and liability may be imposed only when the decision is a substantial
`
`departure from the accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards); see
`
`also Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315 (1982) (persons who have been
`
`involuntarily committed retain substantive liberty interests under the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment, which includes the right to adequate food).
`
`
`
`The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Scott’s requests for
`
`appointment of counsel, a special master, or discovery. See Cano v. Taylor, 739
`
`F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional
`
`circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel); United States v.
`
`Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 774-75 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth
`
`standard of review and “exceptional condition” requirement for appointment of a
`
`special master); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
`
`
`
`2
`
`23-35152
`
`
`
`(setting forth standard of review for a district court’s discovery rulings).
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`3
`
`23-35152
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
