Gregory Goods v. Behroz Hamkar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY GOODS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BEHROZ HAMKAR,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-15796
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-1111-MCE-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Goods, a California state prisoner, 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 and retaliation for filing grievances. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and affirm. See
FILED
MAR 02 2016
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 --

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goods’s deliberate
indifference claim because Goods failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his knee injury. See id. at
1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence,
or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002)
(where the prisoner is alleging that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate
indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led to further injury); see also
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (if the harm is an isolated
exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “‘ordinarily militates against a
finding of deliberate indifference’” (citation omitted)).
We do not consider issues which are not supported by argument. See
Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
15-15796 2

-- 2 of 2 --