Dexter Brown v. Sahir Naseer, M.d.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEXTER BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAHIR NASEER, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-17073
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00225-WBS-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Dexter Brown 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 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-17073
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Brown failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Naseer was
“subjectively aware” that his failure to order requested testing and his order to
restrict Brown’s fluid intake “created a substantial risk of harm” to Brown. See id.
at 1060; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“[A] complaint that a
physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not
state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.”);
Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (difference of opinion
between prisoner and medical staff does not give rise to a deliberate indifference
claim).
We reject as unsupported by the record Brown’s contention that he alleged a
due process claim.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --