David Wayne Wilson v. John Dovey;

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).
rgs/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID WAYNE WILSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOVEY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16019
D.C. No. 2:06-CV-02553-JKS-
EFB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
James K. Singleton, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
David Wayne Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
FILED
MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

rgs/Research 08-16019 2
claiming violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments due to lack of
privacy in his medical care and medical information. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a complaint
for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s Eighth Amendment claim
because he failed to allege that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs under Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
Wilson’s claim that no medical or security personnel should be present at his
psychiatric appointments amounts to a disagreement with the way that treatment is
provided, which is insufficient to assert a claim of deliberate indifference. See
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Wilson fails to
allege any physical symptoms or the type of harm required for a deliberate
indifference claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
See Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627-28 (9th Cir. 2002).
The district court also properly dismissed Wilson’s Fourteenth Amendment
claim because the presence of nurses, psychiatric technicians, and correctional
officers during Wilson’s medical appointments served legitimate penological
interests in maintaining order and providing security. See Procunier v. Martinez,

-- 2 of 3 --

rgs/Research 08-16019 3
416 U.S. 396, 412 (1974), overruled in part on other grounds by Thornburgh v.
Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)
(establishing four-factor test to analyze prisoners’ constitutional claims).
Wilson’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --