German Coreas v. MILLER, Registered Nurse

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GERMAN COREAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MILLER, Registered Nurse,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-17538
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00703-LJO-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner German Coreas 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.
FILED
AUG 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-17538 2
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Coreas
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a one-day delay in
changing Coreas’s bandages following knee surgery caused him to contract
cellulitis or to suffer further injury and undue pain. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d
1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard for deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs, and explaining that a prisoner must show harm “caused by”
the indifference to establish deliberate indifference); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58
(neither negligence nor prisoner’s difference of opinion with prison medical
authorities is sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim); Hallet v. Morgan,
296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based
on delay in treatment must show that delay led to further injury).
Coreas’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged failure to review
his medical journal evidence, and to weigh properly the testimony of an expert
witness submitted by defendant, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --