DANIEL SANDIGO V. MICHAEL SAYRE, No. 15-15850 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 05 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DANIEL S. SANDIGO, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 15-15850 D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00980-WHO v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL C. SAYRE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick III, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Daniel S. Sandigo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. * 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). 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sandigo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his shoulder injury. See id. at 1057-58, 1060 (to establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as unsupported by the record Sandigo’s contention that the district court failed to analyze evidence. AFFIRMED. 2 15-15850

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.