Denham v. State of Ariz.

97 F.3d 1459 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Brad DENHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona, Defendant, and Ruben Acosta, M.D.; Theodore B. Jolley; Barbara Tucker; Robert White, Dr.; Theodore Smith, Dr.; Catsaros, Dr.; Ray Rickleman; Maria Nugent; Barbara Major; Thomas Lutz, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-16962. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 23, 1996. * Decided Sept. 26, 1996. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and JOHN T. NOONAN, Jr., Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Bradley Denham, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for physician Ruben Acosta and various state prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in treating him for diverticulitis. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. 3 We review de novo a district court's grant…