From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hightower v. Terhune

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 14, 2006
201 F. App'x 492 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Submitted September 11, 2006.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Thomas A. Hightower, Corcoran, CA, pro se.

Joan W. Cavanagh, Attorney General's Office, John William Riches, II, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-02152-EJG (DAD).

Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

California state prisoner Thomas A. Hightower appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in favor of prison officials in Hightower's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his

Page 493.

serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After de novo review, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), we affirm.

It is undisputed that Hightower suffered from a variety of serious medical conditions. But the district court properly granted summary judgment on Hightower's claims of deliberate indifference because he failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the course of treatment the prison doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996). The record shows at most a difference of opinion about the proper course of medical treatment. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir.1989) (a difference of opinion about a course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hightower's motion for a preliminary injunction because Hightower did not satisfy the criteria for granting a preliminary injunction. See City of Tenakee Springs v. Block, 778 F.2d 1402, 1407 (9th Cir.1985).

Hightower's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Hightower v. Terhune

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 14, 2006
201 F. App'x 492 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

Hightower v. Terhune

Case Details

Full title:Thomas A. HIGHTOWER, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. Cal TERHUNE, Director; et…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 14, 2006

Citations

201 F. App'x 492 (9th Cir. 2006)