NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL GREEN, AKA Kevin Dean No. 19-16715
Brewer,
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00648-WHA
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
California state prisoner Michael Green 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 Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Green failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his priapism and chronic pain. See id. at 1057-58 (a
prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see id. at 1058 (“[T]o prevail
on a claim involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner
must show that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under
the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to
[the prisoner’s] health[.]” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The motion of defendants Fu, Kumar, Omosaiye, Bright, Ellis, Pagong, and
Erguiza to amend the caption (Docket Entry No. 21) is granted in part. The Clerk
is instructed to add Gerald Ellis and San Fu as defendants-appellees to the caption.
To the extent the motion seeks any other relief, it is denied unnecessary.
The Clerk is also instructed to file the answering brief, the supplemental
2 19-16715
excerpts of record, and the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry Nos. 19, 20, and
22, respectively.
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-16715