Opinion

Darrell Williams v. Brown

  • 678 F. App'x 586
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Feb 27, 2017
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Farris, Fernandez, Goodwin
Nature of suit
Prisoner
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 3.6%

a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference

How later courts described this case

  • a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference
  • if the harm is an isolated exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “ ‘ordinarily militates against a finding of deliberate indifference’ ” (citation omitted)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARRELL WILLIAMS, No. 15-16661

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-

DAD

v.

BROWN, Nurse, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Darrell Williams appeals pro se from the district

court’s sua sponte 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).

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte because

Williams “had a full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the

matter” and Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to

whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his diabetes. Norse v. City of

Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 971-72 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Jett v.

Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (if the harm is an isolated exception

to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “‘ordinarily militates against a finding of

deliberate indifference’” (citation omitted)); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057, 1060 (a

prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards

an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice or negligence does not

amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-16661

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.