Eugene Hamilton v. J. Rhoads

MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Eugene Hamilton 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.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hamilton’s claims against defendants Rhoads and Chu because Hamilton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether they consciously disregarded a serious risk to his health by trying to manage his degenerative disc disease and chronic pain due to spinal injuries, instead of transferring him to a medical facility. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (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 (prisoner’s difference of opinion with physician regarding course of treatment is not sufficient; rather, to show deliberate indifference, prisoner…