Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0869-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David ARENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jen FONTAINE; Arshad Tariq, Dr., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15419
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    David Arenberg, Pro Se
    Michael E. Gottfried, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Jen Fontaine
    Catherine Mitsuld, Asuncion, Jeffry A. Miller, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San Diego, CA, Venus Booth, Counsel, James K. Kloss, Attorney, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Ar-shad Tariq
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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 Tar-iq was deliberately indifferent to Aren-berg’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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.