Hill v. Youssef

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TION ALONZO GRIMMETT HILL Sr., No. 25-1921 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00492-DJC-JDP Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

A. YOUSSEF, Chief Medical Executive; ROSELLE BRANCH, Doctor; R. MIRANDA, Doctor; LEAN K. NGUYEN, M.D.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Court, Presiding

Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Tion Alonzo Grimmett Hill, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

*

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).

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Daubert v. Lindsay Unified Sch. Dist., 760 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hill failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating Hill’s eye injury. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a prison official must have actual knowledge that a substantial risk of serious harm exists); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that a “difference of medical opinion” is “insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate indifference”); Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (observing that a delay in treatment is insufficient to state a claim of deliberate indifference unless it causes harm); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that there is no vicarious liability under § 1983).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-1921