Lerma

Lerma v. Bell

Good Law
2 F. App'x 782
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 24, 2001No. 00-15403California470 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Michael Lerma, a California state inmate, appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, see Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

*784 We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Lerma’s claim that denial of the use of an elastic knee brace constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need because the prison officials presented evidence that the confiscation of the brace was based on legitimate safety concerns. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22 , 106 S.Ct. 1078 , 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (holding that prison officials should be accorded wide ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies necessary to preserve internal order and maintain institutional security).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lerma’s claim that several cell reassignments constituted deliberate indifference to his medical needs because…

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.