Jordan

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Edward Jordan appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district *229 court in favor of defendants Hobart Smith and John H. Pappenfus. Is there a material fact in dispute?

Undisputed is that Jordan was a prisoner at Avenal State Prison (ASP) from October 6, 1998 to December 15, 1999. Dr. Smith on October 14, 1998 diagnosed him as suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and in need of “PT” (physical therapy). At various times Smith prescribed medicine to control Jordan’s pain. On Smith’s recommendation, Jordan was referred on November 2, 1998 to Dr. Pappenfus, an internist at the prison. Pappenfus also prescribed pain medications. At some point in time Smith and Pappenfus instructed Jordan how to self-administer physical therapy. On May 28, 1999, on Pappenfus’s recommendation, Jordan was seen by Dr. John Norris, a rheumatologist at California Men’s Colony (CMC). According to Pappenfus’ declaration, “The goal at the time that Jordan was housed at ASP was to have him in a facility where formal physical therapy could be instituted.” CMC was such a facility. On July 6, 1999, Jordan became totally disabled. An attempt was made to transfer him to CMC but the…

dissenting, in part.

While I agree that Jordan established a genuine issue of material fact with respect *230 to his state negligence claim, I find no support in the record for the majority’s conclusion that Smith and Pappenfus violated Jordan’s Eighth Amendment rights by deliberately subjecting him to “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 , 96 S.Ct. 2909 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976).

To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, Jordan must demonstrate that Smith and Pappenfus acted with “deliberate indifference to [his] serious medical needs” by treating him themselves rather than transferring him to CMC for formal physical therapy. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1977) (emphasis added); see also Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining that courts must “scrutinize the particular facts and look for substantial indifference in the individual case, indicating more than mere negligence or isolated occurrences of neglect”). Jordan has not shown that Smith and Pappenfus recognized that the treatments they administered (i.e., prescription medicine and self-administered physical…