Raymond Richard Whitall v. STEPHANIE TRAN PHAN, M.D., Primary Care Physician, CDC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND RICHARD WHITALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEPHANIE TRAN PHAN, M.D., Primary
Care Physician, CDC and Rehabilitation; A.
NEWTON, Supervising R.N. II, Salinas
Valley State Prison; MS. DOWLESS, Public
Health Nurse, Salinas Valley State Prison;
LIZ DOEHRING, N.P.C. TTA Nurse
Practitioner, Salinas Valley State Prison;
LAW SAN FU, M.D., Physician and
Surgeon, Salinas Valley State Prison;
LAWRENCE GAMBOA, M.D., Chief
Physician and Surgeon, Salinas Valley State
Prison; WILSON, Dr., Chief Nurse
Executive, Salinas Valley State Prison; KIM
KUMAR, M.D., Chief Medical Executive,
Salinas Valley State Prison; ELAINE
CANTU, Acting Chief Executive Officer,
Salinas Valley State Prison; B.
BRIZENDINE, Psy. D., MBA, CCHP, Chief
Executive Officer, Salinas Valley State
Prison; ROGER L. MARTINEZ,
Correctional Lieutenant, Salinas Valley State
Prison; GONZALEZ, Correctional Captain,
SVSP Health Care Services, Salinas Valley
State Prison; W. L. MUNIZ, Warden, Salinas
No. 21-16463
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05889-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUL 7 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Valley State Prison; KATHLEEN
ALLISON, Director, CDC and
Rehabilitation; N. WALKER, Associate
Warden; J. LEWIS, Deputy Director, Policy
and Risk Management,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 5, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Richard Whitall, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment for defendants 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 affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because
Whitall failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the treatment
for his arthritis “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was
chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [his] health.” Id. at 1058
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
(explaining that a difference of medical opinion is insufficient, as a matter of law,
to establish deliberate indifference) (citation and internal quotation omitted).
On appeal, Whitall argues that he has raised several disputes of material fact,
and that the question of whether his treatment was medically unacceptable should
be presented to a jury. However, Whithall has not presented evidence that Phan’s
treatment was medically unacceptable, and so summary judgment for the
defendants was appropriate. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23
(1986) (plaintiff’s complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of his
case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --