Shepherd

Shepherd v. Malan

Good Law
13 F. App'x 584
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 28, 2001No. 99-17596; D.C. No. CV-97-00891-MMCCalifornia542 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Shepherd (“Shepherd”), an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison in California, appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials and medical personnel. Shepherd filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was denied adequate dental treatment in violation of his constitutional rights. Shepherd also alleged retaliation for filing prisoner appeals, namely that the dental office failed to properly document his dental visits and his attorney was prevented from contact visitation and mail correspondence.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Cole v. Oroville Union High School District, 228 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.2000) (citation omitted).

In order to state a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, Shepherd must allege facts *586 establishing that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir.1999). At most, Shepherd asserted a difference of medical opinion among the dental staff, which is not actionable. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996). Shepherd failed to show a denial, delay or intentional interference with…

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.