Walter Rodenhurst, Iii v. Kay Bauman
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Hawaii state prisoner Walter V. Roden-hurst, III, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference, violations of his right of access to the courts, and state law claims. 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 Rodenhurst’s Eighth Amendment claims because Rodenhurst failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference in providing medical care for his conditions, including his pancreatitis and hypertension, and in failing to provide him with a special diet in a consistent manner. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (to establish deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference”); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (neither negligence nor a difference in medical opinion is sufficient to establish deliberate indifference).