ROBERT ALEXANDER V. MAX WILLIAMS, No. 13-36197 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT DALE ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-36197 D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06215-PK v. MEMORANDUM * MAX WILLIAMS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Paul J. Papak II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 9, 2017 Portland, Oregon Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Prisoner Robert Alexander brought suit against several prison personnel alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Alexander appealed the grant of summary judgment to four of the defendants: Dr. Gulick, Dr. Hansen, Dr. Shelton, and Nurse Gruenwald * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (collectively, “Defendants”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, with the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). To succeed on a claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment, “a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The plaintiff must show more than “a difference of medical opinion”; instead, he must show that the defendant’s conduct was “medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and that the defendant consciously disregarded the excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). There is no evidence that Defendants recognized Alexander’s need for treatment and yet acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Instead, the evidence shows that Alexander received constant or near-constant treatment during the time period at issue. Defendants prescribed medication, pursued testing, requested consultations, and ordered a variety of treatments to help Alexander. Alexander has not presented evidence to suggest that the treatment he received was medically unacceptable. Alexander’s reliance on Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978 2 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), to demonstrate that Dr. Gulick acted with deliberate indifference in deciding to reduce Alexander’s Neurontin dosage is unavailing; unlike in Snow, there is no evidence that the challenged treatment decision was medically inappropriate. See id. at 990 (reversing a grant of summary judgment to a physician’s assistant when he had denied plaintiff pain medication but a doctor reviewing the decision later “totally disagree[d]”). AFFIRMED. 3
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.
