FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY RONNELL PERKINS, No. 10-17453
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01177-NVW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
J. S. WOODFORD; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Gary Ronnell Perkins, a 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
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Perkins’s Eighth
Amendment claim because Perkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether treatment by prison medical staff of his hernia and related pain
constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1058 (a prison official acts with
deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d
732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (where a prisoner is alleging that delay of medical
treatment evinces deliberate indifference, he must show that the delay led to further
injury).
The district court properly construed Perkins’s Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim as an Eighth Amendment claim. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.
386, 395 (1989) (where a particular Amendment “provides an explicit textual
source of constitutional protection” against a particular sort of government
behavior, “that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due
process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims”).
Perkins’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-17453