Howard White v. Romeo Aranas

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOWARD LEE WHITE, No. 18-16899

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00573-MMD-

WGC

v.

ROMEO ARANAS; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees,

and ISIDRO BACA, Warden; et al., Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 7, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Howard Lee White, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

*

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).

court’s summary judgment in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and negligence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because White failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent or negligent to White’s dietary needs. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993); DeBoer v. Senior Bridges of Sparks Family Hosp., 282 P.3d 727, 732 (Nev. 2012) (setting forth the elements of a traditional negligence claim under Nevada law).

White’s motion to substitute party (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.

AFFIRMED.