From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Letourneau

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 30, 2015
592 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 13-17660

01-30-2015

DAVID SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. LETOURNEAU; J. SILVA, Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02808-TLN-EFB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

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

David Smith, a former California state prisoner, 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, Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent by failing to remove Smith from his work assignment, or by requiring Smith to work in the sun. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 844 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety" and "may be found free from liability if [he or she] responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted").

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Smith v. Letourneau

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 30, 2015
592 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Smith v. Letourneau

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D. LETOURNEAU; J. SILVA, Defendants…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 30, 2015

Citations

592 F. App'x 571 (9th Cir. 2015)