Dexter Brown v. Sahir Naseer ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEXTER BROWN, No. 16-17073
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00225-WBS-
CKD
v.
SAHIR NASEER, M.D., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Dexter Brown 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.
*
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.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Brown failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Naseer was
“subjectively aware” that his failure to order requested testing and his order to
restrict Brown’s fluid intake “created a substantial risk of harm” to Brown. See id.
at 1060; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“[A] complaint that a
physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not
state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.”);
Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (difference of opinion
between prisoner and medical staff does not give rise to a deliberate indifference
claim).
We reject as unsupported by the record Brown’s contention that he alleged a
due process claim.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-17073