Marc Dawson v. S. Latham, et al, No. 09-17255 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 29 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARC CHARLES DAWSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-17255 D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00741-JF v. MEMORANDUM * S. LATHAM; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeremy Fogel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Marc Charles Dawson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his 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), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dawson failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants treatment of his symptoms after he was inadvertently administered one dose of unknown medication constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment generally does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (where a prisoner is alleging that delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference, he must show that the delay led to further injury). Dawson s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 09-17255

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.