Darrell Williams v. Brown , 678 F. App'x 586 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRELL WILLIAMS, No. 15-16661
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02043-JAM-
DAD
v.
BROWN, Nurse, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Darrell Williams appeals pro se from the district
court’s sua sponte 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte because
Williams “had a full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the
matter” and Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his diabetes. Norse v. City of
Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 971-72 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Jett v.
Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (if the harm is an isolated exception
to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “‘ordinarily militates against a finding of
deliberate indifference’” (citation omitted)); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057, 1060 (a
prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice or negligence does not
amount to deliberate indifference).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16661