Summary
In Wilhelm v. Enenmoh, 608 Fed.Appx. 513, 514 (9th Cir. 2015), the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff failed to establish a serious medical need for alternative soap or the deliberate indifference of a prison doctor who denied a prescription for non-prison-issued soap.
Summary of this case from Jackson v. SinclairOpinion
No. 13-16798
06-26-2015
STEVEN HAIRL WILHELM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANTHONY ENENMOH, (CMO) Chief Medical Officer; G. MILLER, Appeals Coordinator, Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01663-LJO-DLB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Steven Hairl Wilhelm, a 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Wilhelm failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Wilhelm had a serious medical need, and whether defendant Dr. Enenmoh acted with deliberate indifference when he denied Wilhelm a prescription for medicated or non-prison-issued soap. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (a serious medical need exists if a failure to treat a prisoner's condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a prisoner's difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference).
We do not consider whether summary judgment was properly granted to defendant Miller because Wilhelm did not address it in his opening brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.").
Wilhelm's request for ruling, filed on January 26, 2015, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.