FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUGENE HAMILTON, No. 13-15217
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00227-RMW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. RHOADS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Eugene Hamilton 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. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hamilton’s claims
against defendants Rhoads and Chu because Hamilton failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether they consciously disregarded a serious risk to
his health by trying to manage his degenerative disc disease and chronic pain due
to spinal injuries, instead of transferring him to a medical facility. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847 (1994) (a prison official acts with deliberate
indifference if “he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and
disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”); Toguchi,
391 F.3d at 1058 (prisoner’s difference of opinion with physician regarding course
of treatment is not sufficient; rather, to show deliberate indifference, prisoner must
establish that the chosen course of treatment “was medically unacceptable under
the circumstances” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (party opposing
summary judgment may not rest on conclusory assertions, but must come forward
with significantly probative evidence).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hamilton’s claims
against defendants Larico and Shytle because Hamilton failed to raise a triable
dispute as to whether they had any personal knowledge of or involvement in the
2 13-15217
alleged constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.
2011) (“[A] plaintiff may state a claim against a supervisor for deliberate
indifference based upon the supervisor’s knowledge of and acquiescence in
unconstitutional conduct by his or her subordinates.”).
Hamilton’s contentions that the district court allegedly failed to view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the moving party and made improper
credibility determinations are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15217