David Arenberg v. JEN FONTAINE; ARSHAD TARIQ, Dr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID ARENBERG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JEN FONTAINE; ARSHAD TARIQ, Dr.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15419
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01344-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Former Arizona state prisoner David Arenberg 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15419
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Tariq
because Arenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Tariq was deliberately indifferent to Arenberg’s rashes. See id. at 1057-60
(deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence,
or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
To the extent Arenberg contends that he alleged a separate First Amendment
retaliation claim, we reject this contention as unsupported by the record.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --