Court Opinion

ID: 9407887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 18:00:59.981318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.601827
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL W. JOHNSON,                             No.    22-15604

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03101-JAM-JDP

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden, The
Warden; CHARLOTTE REYNOLS, The
Superintendent II Cal PIA; C. SMITH, MD
FACP Chief Physician/Surgeon; SAM
WONG, Doctor; CRAIG VERNON,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Michael W. Johnson appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir.

2016), and we affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Johnson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his request to leave work midday to obtain medication

for his ulcerative colitis. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)

(“[T]he official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the

inference.”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison

official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an

excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of

opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate

indifference).

      Johnson’s motion for an order of default (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-15604