Leandro Leonel GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. DEGUZMAN, Correctional Officer; in individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: December 14, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Leandro Leonel Gonzalez, Pro Se David Edward Kuchinsky, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
California state prisoner Leandro Leonel Gonzalez appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and excessive force 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). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant DeGuzman on Gonzalez's claims of deliberate indifference to safety and excessive force because Gonzalez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether DeGuzman knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Gonzalez's safety, or maliciously and sadistically used force against him. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official cannot be held liable for deliberate indifference unless the prison official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (the “core judicial inquiry” in resolving an excessive force claim is “whether force was applied ․ maliciously and sadistically to cause harm”).
The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez's claims alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs against defendants Rodrin and Calderon because Gonzalez failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review; although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (delay in providing medical treatment is insufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim unless the delay was harmful).
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.