Slack v. Kariko

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 27, 2025

Docket23-1509

StatusUnpublished

This text of Slack v. Kariko (Slack v. Kariko) 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

Slack v. Kariko, (9th Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOMMIE SLACK, No. 23-1509 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05508-RSM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

SARAH KARIKO, Dr.; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2025**

Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Former Washington state prisoner Tommie Slack appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm

* 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). on any basis supported by the record. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom, 919

F.3d 1148, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because Slack failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in

treating Slack’s lipomas and pain. See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092

(9th Cir. 2016) (stating that a difference of opinion between a physician and a

prisoner concerning appropriate medical care does not amount to deliberate

indifference); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (explaining that a prison official is

deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to inmate health).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Slack’s motion for

reconsideration because Slack failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)

(setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-1509

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOMMIE SLACK, No. 23-1509 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05508-RSM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

SARAH KARIKO, Dr.; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2025**

Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Former Washington state prisoner Tommie Slack appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth

Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm

* 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). on any basis supported by the record. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom, 919

F.3d 1148, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because Slack failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in

treating Slack’s lipomas and pain. See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092

(9th Cir. 2016) (stating that a difference of opinion between a physician and a

prisoner concerning appropriate medical care does not amount to deliberate

indifference); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (explaining that a prison official is

deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to inmate health).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Slack’s motion for

reconsideration because Slack failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)

(setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-1509

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung

391 F.3d 1051 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Fleet Hamby v. Steven Hammond

821 F.3d 1085 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Gavin Newsom

919 F.3d 1148 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Slack v. Kariko, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slack-v-kariko-ca9-2025.