Alvin Leslie Witherspoon v. Bernard Warner;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALVIN LESLIE WITHERSPOON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BERNARD WARNER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-36219
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05163-JPH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Alvin Leslie Witherspoon, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
violations of his 8th Amendment rights in connection with his medical treatment.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v.
FILED
FEB 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because Witherspoon failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his knee condition.
See Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014) (a difference of
opinion between a prisoner and patient is not sufficient to establish deliberate
indifference); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish
that a difference of medical opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner
“must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically
unacceptable under the circumstances” and “that they chose this course in
conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner’s] health”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion
for a protective order. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir.
1988) (setting forth the standard of review and noting that “[t]he district court has
wide discretion in controlling discovery”)
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-36219 2

-- 2 of 2 --