Michael Stringer v. Terri Jacobs , 585 F. App'x 372 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 8 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL STRINGER, No. 13-16825
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00711-RCJ-VPC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TERRI JACOBS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Stringer 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 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).
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stringer’s claim
against defendant Koehn because Stringer failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant Koehn consciously disregarded a serious risk
to Stringer’s health in addressing his abdominal pain. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 845, 847 (1994) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if “he
knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk
by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (to
show deliberate indifference, prisoner must establish that the chosen course of
treatment “was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment may not rest on
conclusory assertions, but must come forward with significant probative evidence).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stringer’s claim
against defendants Jacobs and Smith because Stringer failed to raise a triable
dispute as to whether they had any personal knowledge of or involvement in the
alleged constitutional violation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.
1988) (“Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent summary
judgment. The prisoner must set forth specific facts as to each individual
2 13-15217
defendant’s deliberate indifference.” (citations omitted)).
We reject Stringer’s contentions that the district court allegedly failed to
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, handled his
case perfunctorily, and made improper credibility determinations.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15217