Ivan Vernord Cleveland v. PHUC T. LAM, Dr.

12-15900Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2 de ago. de 2013

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
IVAN VERNORD CLEVELAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PHUC T. LAM, Dr.,
Defendant - Appellee,
J. CHUDY, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 12-15900
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05350-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ivan Vernord Cleveland appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
FILED
AUG 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15900 2
deliberate indifference and other claims. 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 on Cleveland’s
deliberate indifference claim because, even assuming that his coughing disorder
and lipomas constituted serious medical conditions, Cleveland failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Lam consciously
disregarded any risk they posed to Cleveland’s health. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 833-35 (1994) (setting forth elements of deliberate indifference);
Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (explaining that neither prisoner’s difference of
opinion with prison medical authorities regarding treatment, nor negligence in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition, gives rise to a § 1983 claim).
Cleveland’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged failure to
review all the evidence, and defendant Lam’s alleged attempts to intimidate him
during this litigation, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.