Court Opinion

ID: 5121546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-27 20:00:33.414361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:17.840202
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                               OCT 27 2021
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WARREN CLEVELAND GREEN,                          No.   21-15249

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No.
                                                 2:18-cv-01931-WBS-KJN
 v.

GALEN H. CHURCH; J. AGARWAL,                     MEMORANDUM*
Dr.; MONTAUK, Dr.; MICHAEL
MARTEL, Warden; ANISE ADAMS,
Chief Medical Executive; AKINTOLA,

              Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 25, 2021**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges

      Warren Green appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of Dr. Agarwal in Green’s prisoner civil rights action alleging deliberate

      *
             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).
indifference to a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006),

and affirm.

      Summary judgment was proper for the defendant. At most, Green

established a difference of opinion between himself and the medical professionals

regarding diagnosis and treatment of his serious medical need. Such a difference

of opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Toguchi v. Chung,

391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.

1989). Nor would negligence rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Jett, 439

F.3d at 1096.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2