Steven Gonzales v. Godwin Ugwueze

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN GONZALES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GODWIN UGWUEZE,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-15527
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01588-LJO-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven Gonzales 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
MAR 02 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 --

2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gonzales
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Ugwueze was
deliberately indifferent to Gonzales’s knee pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison
official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; a mere difference in opinion between a
prisoner and a physician concerning the appropriate course of treatment is
insufficient); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992),
overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.
1997) (en banc) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a
prisoner’s pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be
established.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzales’s motion
for appointment of an expert witness because Gonzales’s deliberate indifference
claim was neither factually nor legally complex. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield
Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth
standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15527

-- 2 of 2 --