David Harpine v. Ignacio De Las Heras

Ninth Circuit

David Harpine v. Ignacio De Las Heras

407 F. App'x 146

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 22, 2010

Docket09-35910

StatusUnpublished

This text of 407 F. App'x 146 (David Harpine v. Ignacio De Las Heras) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David Harpine v. Ignacio De Las Heras, 407 F. App'x 146 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

David Lindon Harpine, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

*147 The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harpine’s claims against defendant De Las Heras because Harpine failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether De Las Heras purposefully ignored or failed to respond to Harpine’s medical condition. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harpine’s claims against defendant Dhaliwal because Harpine failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to Dhaliwal’s alleged deliberate indifference. Dhaliwal prescribed various pain killers and behavior change to treat the condition and referred Harpine to specialists to evaluate his condition and opine as to the need for further treatment. That this was not the treatment Harpine desired does not render it “so outrageous as to amount to no treatment at all.” Shields v. Kunkel, 442 F.2d 409, 409 (9th Cir.1971); see also Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (9th Cir.1989) (“A difference of opinion does not amount to a deliberate indifference to ... serious medical needs.”).

Harpine’s motion for reconsideration is denied. His motion for judicial notice is granted but his motion for an order is denied as unnecessary.

Harpine’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

David Lindon Harpine, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

*147 The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harpine’s claims against defendant De Las Heras because Harpine failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether De Las Heras purposefully ignored or failed to respond to Harpine’s medical condition. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harpine’s claims against defendant Dhaliwal because Harpine failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to Dhaliwal’s alleged deliberate indifference. Dhaliwal prescribed various pain killers and behavior change to treat the condition and referred Harpine to specialists to evaluate his condition and opine as to the need for further treatment. That this was not the treatment Harpine desired does not render it “so outrageous as to amount to no treatment at all.” Shields v. Kunkel, 442 F.2d 409, 409 (9th Cir.1971); see also Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240 (9th Cir.1989) (“A difference of opinion does not amount to a deliberate indifference to ... serious medical needs.”).

Harpine’s motion for reconsideration is denied. His motion for judicial notice is granted but his motion for an order is denied as unnecessary.

Harpine’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 F. App'x 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-harpine-v-ignacio-de-las-heras-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack