From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Valladares v. Hubbard

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 4, 2013
490 F. App'x 72 (9th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 11-56905 D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00441-R-PJW

01-04-2013

CARLOS VALLADARES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUSAN HUBBARD, Warden, Defendant, and S. ZAMORA; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding


Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Carlos Valladares 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 Valladares failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded Valladares's medical needs after he broke his toe in a slip and fall accident in his cell. See id. at 1057 (discussing objective and subjective elements of deliberate indifference claim). Moreover, neither a short delay in treatment that did not result in further injury, nor Valladares's disagreement with defendants' medical judgment or course of treatment, constitutes deliberate indifference. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (to establish deliberate indifference based on a delay in treatment, there must be proof that it resulted in further significant injury or the wanton infliction of pain); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1059-60 (difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

We do not consider Valladares's contentions regarding defendant Zamora's partial denial of his prison grievance arising out of his medical condition because Valladares failed to raise this issue before the district court. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Valladares v. Hubbard

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 4, 2013
490 F. App'x 72 (9th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Valladares v. Hubbard

Case Details

Full title:CARLOS VALLADARES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SUSAN HUBBARD, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 4, 2013

Citations

490 F. App'x 72 (9th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Wages v. Mizu

The fact that Wages had to wait overnight for treatment, without more, does not meet the high legal standard…

Maday v. Dooley

Maday's belief that his treatment plan should have included crutches or a cane, a hospital visit, access to…