NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT DALE ALEXANDER, No. 13-36197
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06215-PK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MAX WILLIAMS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Paul J. Papak II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 9, 2017
Portland, Oregon
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Prisoner Robert Alexander brought suit against several prison personnel
alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. Alexander appealed the grant of summary judgment to four of
the defendants: Dr. Gulick, Dr. Hansen, Dr. Shelton, and Nurse Gruenwald
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(collectively, “Defendants”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, with the evidence
viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004).
To succeed on a claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth
Amendment, “a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to
evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The plaintiff must show more than “a difference of medical
opinion”; instead, he must show that the defendant’s conduct was “medically
unacceptable under the circumstances” and that the defendant consciously
disregarded the excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90
F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996).
There is no evidence that Defendants recognized Alexander’s need for
treatment and yet acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Instead, the
evidence shows that Alexander received constant or near-constant treatment during
the time period at issue. Defendants prescribed medication, pursued testing,
requested consultations, and ordered a variety of treatments to help Alexander.
Alexander has not presented evidence to suggest that the treatment he received was
medically unacceptable. Alexander’s reliance on Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978
2
(9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076
(9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), to demonstrate that Dr. Gulick acted with deliberate
indifference in deciding to reduce Alexander’s Neurontin dosage is unavailing;
unlike in Snow, there is no evidence that the challenged treatment decision was
medically inappropriate. See id. at 990 (reversing a grant of summary judgment to
a physician’s assistant when he had denied plaintiff pain medication but a doctor
reviewing the decision later “totally disagree[d]”).
AFFIRMED.
3