Ramon Murillo v. Charles Dudley

MEMORANDUM

Ramon Murillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by circumcising him without his consent. 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 Murillo’s deliberate indifference claim because Murillo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew or had reason to know that Murillo did not consent to the circumcision. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 , 114 S.Ct. 1970 , 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (standard for evaluating a claim of deliberate indifference); see also Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060 (medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Murillo’s excessive force claim because Murillo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the circumcision was performed maliciously and sadistically to cause…