Elonza Jesse Tyler v. R. L. Andreasen, M.d.;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
GT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELONZA JESSE TYLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. L. ANDREASEN, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17370
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01883-MCE-
EFB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Elonza Jesse Tyler, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment for prison medical officials in his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

GT/Research 08-17370 2
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Tyler failed
to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs concerning his knees. See id. at 1058 (“[T]o prevail on a claim
involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner must show
that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the
prisoner’s] health.”) (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original).
Tyler’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We deny all pending motions.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --