Aurelio Sepulveda v. Jeanne Woodford

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Aurelio Martin Sepulveda appeals pro se from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in Sepulveda’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among other things, deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation against him for filing grievances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sepulveda’s Eighth Amendment claims because Sepulveda failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Dr. Shu-Pin Wu was deliberately indifferent in treating Sepulveda’s diabetic neuropathy and eye conditions. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sepulveda’s retaliation claim because Sepulveda failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Wu took an adverse action against him…