From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Alameda County Sheriff

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 27, 2007
256 F. App'x 961 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 06-17069.

Submitted November 13, 2007.

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

Filed November 27, 2007.

Charles Lee Williams, Represa, CA, pro se.

Matthew M. Grigg, Esq., Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-02086-MMC.

Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


California state prisoner Charles Lee Williams appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical attention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants because Williams did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any of the prison medical staff possessed a culpable state of mind in deciding not to operate immediately on Williams' hernia. See id. (outlining requirements of medical indifference claim under Eighth Amendment).

Williams' motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Alameda County Sheriff

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 27, 2007
256 F. App'x 961 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Williams v. Alameda County Sheriff

Case Details

Full title:Charles Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 27, 2007

Citations

256 F. App'x 961 (9th Cir. 2007)