Frank J. Fernandez v. C. David, 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK J. FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
C. DAVID, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15118
D.C. No. Cv-06-00888-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Frank J. Fernandez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district 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
FILED
OCT 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-15118 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on
Fernandez’s deliberate indifference claim because he failed to raise a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether their treatment of his hemorrhoids and bacterial skin
infection disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976) (plaintiff must show that the defendants intentionally
disregarded a serious medical need); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (a difference of
medical opinion concerning treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Fernandez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Fernandez’s pending motion, filed on August 6, 2010, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --