FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD COCHRAN, No. 13-15667
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01365-RCB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SUDHA RAO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 13-15667