The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral… v. Nancy Adams, M.d.

13-16670Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 29, 2015

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-16670
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01793-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Hugo Lua 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
* 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).
HUGO LUA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NANCY ADAMS, M.D.,
Defendant - Appellee.
FILED
JUN 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lua failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Dr. Adams acted
with deliberate indifference to Lua’s chronic back 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; negligence and a mere
difference in opinion are insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation);
see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (“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.”), overruled on other
grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).
Lua’s motion for default, filed on June 23, 2014, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16670

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.