-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIEGFRIED PEDERSEN, No. 12-35444 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00110-TMB v. MEMORANDUM * STEVE BRUNGER; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 14, 2013 ** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Alaska state prisoner Siegfried Pedersen appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even assuming Pedersen had a serious medical need, Pedersen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants failed to respond adequately to his injured shoulder. See
id. at 1058(prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health); Jackson v. McIntosh,
90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must show that the defendants’ chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration because Pedersen failed to establish any ground for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and discussing grounds for reconsideration). Pedersen’s contentions concerning the district court’s evidentiary and procedural rulings are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 12-35444
Document Info
Docket Number: 12-35444
Citation Numbers: 519 F. App'x 497
Judges: Leavy, Murguia, Thomas
Filed Date: 5/21/2013
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/6/2023