PUGH v. LAM (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-23No. No. 20-15736

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant Friederichs, finding that Pugh failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Darryl Pugh, a California state prisoner, challenged the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Friederichs for allegedly failing to provide adequate medical care for neck, shoulder, and arm pain as well as right hand numbness. Pugh argued that this constituted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment in Friederichs's favor, finding that Pugh had not established a genuine factual dispute on the question of deliberate indifference.

The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, explaining that deliberate indifference requires a showing that a prison official knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk to an inmate's health. The court emphasized that mere medical disagreement, negligence, or malpractice does not meet this demanding legal standard. Because Pugh failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute about whether Friederichs's treatment decisions were made in conscious disregard of a serious health risk, summary judgment was appropriate.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether defendant Friederichs was deliberately indifferent to Pugh's serious medical needs
Whether a difference in medical opinion or negligent treatment constitutes deliberate indifference under § 1983
Whether Pugh presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual dispute for trial

Procedural posture

Pugh appealed pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment in a § 1983 deliberate indifference case.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Darryl Pugh appeals pro se from the district courts 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. L.F. v. Lake Wash. Sch. Dist. #414, 947 F.3d 621, 625 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Friederichs because Pugh failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Friederichs was deliberately indifferent in treating Pughs neck, shoulder, and arm pain, and right hand numbness. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard” requiring that a prison official know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmates health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a prisoner must show that the course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoners health).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider arguments incorporated by reference into the briefs. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (this court reviews only issues argued specifically in a partys opening brief).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

We do not consider Pughs renewed request for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 16). In Docket Entry No. 11, this court denied Pughs motion for appointment of counsel and ordered that no motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or entertained.

AFFIRMED.