Case ID: f-appx_579/html/0596-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howard COCHRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sudha RAO, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-15667.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2014.
    
    Filed June 18, 2014.
    Howard Cochran, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Sherle Flaggman, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Howard Cochran 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 in the treatment of pain in his hand. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Cochran failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Rao knew of or disregarded an excessive risk of serious harm in denying, on a single occasion, Cochran’s request for pain medication, or whether her chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (setting forth standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and explaining that negligence and isolated events do not constitute deliberate indifference); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must show that the defendant’s chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health); see also Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241-42 (9th Cir.2010) (the deliberate indifference standard applies to pretrial detainees because pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment rights are comparable to prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.