Maxwell

MEMORANDUM **

Clifton Wayne Maxwell, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison doctors and a correctional officer were deliberately indifferent to his gastrointestinal pain and bleeding. 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 Maxwell’s delay-of-treatment claim against Dr. Singh because Maxwell did not raise a triable issue as to whether (1) Dr. Singh was aware of Maxwell’s complaints prior to January 27, 2004; (2) Dr. Singh was responsible for scheduling Maxwell’s medical visits; (3) any delay by the doctor caused further harm; or (4) Dr. Singh should have known that delay would cause further harm. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining that delay alone is insufficient). As to Maxwell’s claim that Dr. Singh delayed in treating his pain, Maxwell did not raise a triable issue as to whether (1) the two instances when Dr. Singh saw Maxwell and did not prescribe Prilosec were more than isolated incidents, see…