Jeremy Gauthier v. John Stiles

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY GAUTHIER, No. 09-56096
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:08-cv-1488-SJO-RC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN J. STILES, DOES 1-7,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jeremy Gauthier, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs by various prison medical personnel. We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss,
271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gauthier’s action because neither his
disagreement with the dosage or type of pain medicine administered after his nose
surgery, nor his dissatisfaction with the denial of prescription strength pain
medicine for two days, constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (difference in
opinion between an inmate and medical personnel insufficient to constitute
indifference to medical needs); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir.
1998) (alleged delays in administering pain medication, without more, do not
constitute deliberate indifference).
The district court also properly dismissed Gauthier’s action with prejudice
because the defects in his claim could not be cured by amendment. See McKesson
HBOC v. New York State Common Ret. Fund, 339 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).
Gauthier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-56096