From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Price v. Shelton

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 15, 2021
No. 20-35639 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021)

Opinion

20-35639

11-15-2021

LAURIE PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVE SHELTON, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and ELIZABETH SAZIE; et al., Defendants.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted November 10, 2021 Portland, Oregon

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and WU, District Judge.

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

MEMORANDUM

The Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Former Oregon state prisoner Laurie Price timely appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of Defendants Dr. Steve Shelton, Dr. Robert Snider, Dr. Louis Pang, and Nurse Marilyn Mendoza in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Reviewing de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), we affirm.

The record shows that Plaintiff was examined, monitored, evaluated, and cared for regularly by physicians at the prison infirmary and at outside facilities. In many instances, the care took place within one or two days after Plaintiff informed the prison of a medical issue. Plaintiff also was prescribed various medications to treat her symptoms, and she underwent diagnostic procedures-including CT scans, biopsies, and x-rays-to determine the severity of her condition. At most, the record shows a difference of opinion between Plaintiff and her treating physicians, or mere negligence. A difference of medical opinion does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at 1058. Nor does negligence alone rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, with respect to the alleged delay in arranging for Plaintiff's surgery, Plaintiff offers no evidence to show that any delay was intentional. Moreover, a "mere delay of surgery, without more, is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate medical indifference." Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Price v. Shelton

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 15, 2021
No. 20-35639 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Price v. Shelton

Case Details

Full title:LAURIE PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STEVE SHELTON, Dr.; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 15, 2021

Citations

No. 20-35639 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021)

Citing Cases

Jacobs v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.

See ECF No. 11-1 at 26 (“‘Pre-Existing Condition' means any Sickness or Injury for which the Insured received…