Thomas J. Coffelt v. DAWSON, Doctor, and CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
THOMAS J. COFFELT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAWSON, Doctor, and
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL
SERVICES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35637
D.C. No. 1:07-CV-00419-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Thomas J. Coffelt, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to
medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
OCT 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35637 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.
2003), and its grant of summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056
(9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims alleging deliberate
indifference to medical needs prior to July 2007 because Coffelt failed to exhaust
administrative remedies for those claims. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90,
95 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is mandatory and
requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the remaining
claims regarding medical care for Coffelt’s swollen ankle because he failed to raise
a triable issue as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical
needs. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (a prison official acts with deliberate
indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health
and safety); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (prison officials
manifest deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s medical needs when they deny,
delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment).
Coffelt’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --