FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID SMITH, No. 13-17660
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02808-TLN-
EFB
v.
D. LETOURNEAU; J. SILVA, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
David Smith, a former California state prisoner, 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, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent by failing to remove Smith from his work assignment, or
by requiring Smith to work in the sun. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837,
844 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety” and “may be found free
from liability if [he or she] responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm
ultimately was not averted”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-17660