Pierre L. Hoffman v. Charles D. Lee;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PIERRE L. HOFFMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES D. LEE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16737
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-04499-JW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Ware, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Pierre L. Hoffman 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 and safety. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
SEP 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16737 2
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 Hoffman
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. See id. at 1058 (prison
officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety, and a mere difference of opinion
concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference).
Hoffman’s motion for default, received on January 7, 2011, is ordered filed
and is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --