PAUL ERIAS STELLY, Sr. v. Elaine Tootell, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PAUL ERIAS STELLY, Sr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ELAINE TOOTELL, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16068
D.C. No. 4:08-cv-01997-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Paul Erias Stelly, Sr., appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his mental health and medical needs while he was
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16068 2
incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. We have jurisdiction under 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 Stelly failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was denied timely or
appropriate treatment for his depression, Hepatitis C, or temporal lobe epilepsy
seizure disorder. See id. at 1058 (prison officials are deliberately indifferent only if
they know of and consciously disregard an excessive risk of harm to inmate
health). Stelly’s disagreement with prison medical staff about his treatment did not
constitute deliberate indifference. See id.
Stelly’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --