Carlos Valladares v. SUSAN HUBBARD, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CARLOS VALLADARES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUSAN HUBBARD, Warden,
Defendant,
and
S. ZAMORA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-56905
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00441-R-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-56905 2
California state prisoner Carlos Valladares 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.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valladares
failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants
consciously disregarded Valladares’s medical needs after he broke his toe in a slip
and fall accident in his cell. See id. at 1057 (discussing objective and subjective
elements of deliberate indifference claim). Moreover, neither a short delay in
treatment that did not result in further injury, nor Valladares’s disagreement with
defendants’ medical judgment or course of treatment, constitutes deliberate
indifference. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (to establish
deliberate indifference based on a delay in treatment, there must be proof that it
resulted in further significant injury or the wanton infliction of pain); Toguchi, 391
F.3d at 1059-60 (difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We do not consider Valladares’s contentions regarding defendant Zamora’s
partial denial of his prison grievance arising out of his medical condition because

-- 2 of 3 --

11-56905 3
Valladares failed to raise this issue before the district court. See Greger v.
Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --