Joel Chavez Nunez v. D. BRIGHT, Prison Doctor; T. FRIEDERICHS, Prison Doctor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL CHAVEZ NUNEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. BRIGHT, Prison Doctor; T.
FRIEDERICHS, Prison Doctor,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-17082
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02034-RS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Joel Chavez Nunez 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 safety. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056
* 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
SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-17082
(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Nunez failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Nunez’s medical problems, or knew of and disregarded
an excessive risk to Nunez’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834,
837 (1994) (conditions of confinement claim requires showing that prisoner was
subjected to a sufficiently serious deprivation and that defendants knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to prisoner’s health or safety); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at
1057-60 (negligence, medical malpractice, or a difference of opinion regarding the
course of treatment are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --