Randall Todd Brewer v. State of Nevada

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RANDALL TODD BREWER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA,
Defendant,
and
JAMES BACA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16681
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00622-LRH-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Randall Todd Brewer, a Nevada State prisoner, appeals pro se from the
FILED
JAN 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16681 2
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 affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Brewer did
not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ chosen course
of treatment for Brewer’s chronic abdominal pain “was medically unacceptable
under the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive
risk to [Brewer’s] health.” Id. at 1058 (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted); see also id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.”).
Brewer’s appeal of the denial of his motion for preliminary injunctive relief
is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir.
1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of a
preliminary injunction would have no practical consequences, and the issue is
therefore moot).
Brewer’s remaining contentions, including those regarding the district
court’s denial of his motions for an order of cremation and for a second medical
evaluation, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --