Albert Young v. Peter Bresler

Good Law
444 F. App'x 988
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 25, 201109-17690California327 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Albert Young, 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 hepatitis C in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Summary judgment for defendants Brown and McArthur was proper because Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their failure to inform Young that he had hepatitis C and provide him treatment for his Hepatitis C caused or will cause Young further injury. See Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (a delay in medical treatment must lead to further injury to support a claim of deliberate indifference); see also Ochoa v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 159 , 216 Cal.Rptr. 661 , 703 P.2d 1, 10-14 (1985) (applying the same analytic framework to the plaintiffs claim of deliberate indifference to medical…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.