Stanford Paul Bryant v. STEVEN GREGORY FARMER, Contracted Podiatrist;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STANFORD PAUL BRYANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEVEN GREGORY FARMER,
Contracted Podiatrist; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55904
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02655-H-BLM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Stanford Paul Bryant appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs and various state law claims. We have
FILED
NOV 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-55904 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes,
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th
Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bryant’s deliberate indifference claim
because Bryant failed to allege that defendants consciously disregarded any serious
medical needs related to his toe surgery or that he suffered any further injury due to
an intentional delay in accessing pain medicine. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference standard); Shapley v. Nev. Bd.
of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (for delay
of treatment to constitute deliberate indifference, prisoner must allege that it led to
further injury). At most, Bryant’s allegations amounted to a disagreement with the
course of treatment and the quality of post-surgical care he received, neither of
which constitutes deliberate indifference. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058, 1060.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bryant’s motion for
reconsideration because he failed establish any ground for such relief other than his
disagreement with the court’s judgment. See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255
F.3d 734, 737, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and listing
factors warranting reconsideration).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-55904 3
Bryant’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --