WILLIAMS v. William Muniz, Warden, Defendant. (2020)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Winston WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. GAMBOA, M.D., Chief Surgeon; et al., Defendants-Appellees, William Muniz, Warden, Defendant.
Decided: March 10, 2020
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Winston Williams, Pro Se Daniel Benjamin Alweiss, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA - Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants - Appellees
Winston Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 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 because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his shoulder pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment, medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to deliberate indifference); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (delays must result in substantial harm to constitute deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) to defer or deny summary judgment pending additional discovery, because Williams failed to demonstrate how additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a party seeking additional discovery must show that the evidence sought would preclude summary judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s motion for default judgment because defendants had not yet been served. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and factors to consider in determining whether to enter default judgment).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendants’ request to remove defendant Muniz from the case caption, set forth in the answering brief, is denied as unnecessary.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.