N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL STRINGER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. TER R I JAC OB S; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16825 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00711-R C J-VPC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 23, 2014 * * B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r M ic ha e l Stringe r a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir.



# FIL ED OCT 8 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).2004), a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Stringe r’ s c la im a ga inst de fe nda

nt Koe hn be c a

u se Stringe r fa ile d

to ra i se a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda nt Koe hn c onsc iously

disre ga rde d a se rious risk to Stringe r’ s he a l th in a ddre ssing his a bdom ina l pa in. Se eFarme r v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847 (1994) (a prison offic ia l a c ts with de libe rate indiffe re nc e if “ he knows tha

t inm ate s fa c e a

substa ntia l risk of se rious ha

rm and disre g ards tha

t risk by fa iling to ta

ke re a sona

ble m e a sure s to a

b ate it” ); Toguc h i , 391 F.3d a t 1058 (to show de libe rate indiffe re nc e , prisone r m ust e s ta blish tha t the c h ose n

c ourse of tre atm e nt “ wa s m e dic a lly una c c e pta

ble unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se ealso Ande rson v . Libe rty Lobby , Inc . , 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (pa rty opposing sum

m a ry judgm e nt m ay not re s t on c onc lusory

a sse rtions, but m

ust c om e forward with signific ant proba tive e vide nc e ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Stringe r’ s c la im a ga inst de fe nda

nts Ja c obs a

nd Sm ith be c a

use Stringe r fa ile d to ra ise a tria ble disputea s to whe the r the y ha d a ny pe rsona l knowle dge of or involve m e nt in the a lle ge d c o nstitutiona

l viola tion. Se e Le e r v . Murphy , 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th C ir. 1988) (“ Swe e p ing c onc lusory a lle gations will not suffic e to pre ve nt sum m ary judgm e nt. The prisone r m ust se t forth spe c ific fa c ts a s to e a c h individual 1 3 - 1 5 2 1 7 2de fe nda

nt’ s de libe rat e indiffe re nc e .” (c ita tions omitte d)). W e re je c t Stringe r’ s c onte ntions tha t the distric t c ourt a lle ge dly fa ile d to vie wthe e vide nc e in the light most fa vora b le to the non-m oving pa

rty , ha ndle d his c a se pe rfunc torily , a

n d m a de im

prope r c re dibility

de te rm inat ions. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 5 2 1 7 3