Gregory Goods v. Behroz Hamkar , 637 F. App'x 470 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY GOODS, No. 15-15796
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-1111-MCE-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BEHROZ HAMKAR,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Goods, 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 and retaliation for filing grievances. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and affirm. See
*
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).
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Goods’s deliberate
indifference claim because Goods failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his knee injury. 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); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002)
(where the prisoner is alleging that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate
indifference, the prisoner must show that the delay led to further injury); see also
Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (if the harm is an isolated
exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “‘ordinarily militates against a
finding of deliberate indifference’” (citation omitted)).
We do not consider issues which are not supported by argument. See
Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-15796