NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROLAND HAMILTON, No. 17-15112
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00342-RCJ-WGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROMEO ARANAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Roland Hamilton appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2004). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
To the extent that Hamilton’s deliberate indifference claim was based on
defendant Dr. Aranas allegedly failing to recommend surgery for Hamilton’s
hernia, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Hamilton
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Aranas was
deliberately indifferent. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately
indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an
inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
However, to the extent that Hamilton’s deliberate indifference claim was
based on defendant Dr. Aranas denying Hamilton a follow up appointment with
Dr. Feikes, summary judgment was improper. The record reflects that after
Hamilton told Dr. Aranas that he was supposed to have a follow up appointment
with Dr. Feikes, Dr. Aranas told Hamilton that it “was not going to happen,” and
there is no explanation in the record why Dr. Aranas did not refer the matter to the
Utilization Review Panel. Because Hamilton has raised a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Dr. Aranas chose this course in conscious disregard of
an excessive risk to Hamilton’s health, we reverse the judgment in part and remand
for proceedings as to this claim only.
We reject as without merit Hamilton’s contentions regarding judicial bias.
2 17-15112
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
3 17-15112