Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0714-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul Erias STELLY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elaine TOOTELL, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-16068.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 24, 2012.
    Paul Erias Stelly, Sr., San Rafael, CA, pro se.
    
      John Randall Andrada, Esquire, Lynne Stocker, Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, 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

Former California state prisoner Paul Erias Stelly, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his mental health and medical needs while he was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. 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 because Stelly failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was denied timely or appropriate treatment for his depression, Hepatitis C, or temporal lobe epilepsy seizure disorder. See id. at 1058 (prison officials are deliberately indifferent only if they know of and consciously disregard an excessive risk of harm to inmate health). Stelly’s disagreement with prison medical staff about his treatment did not constitute deliberate indifference. See id.

Stelly’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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