DARRELL WILLIAMS V. BROWN, No. 15-16661 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DARRELL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16661 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02043-JAMDAD v. MEMORANDUM* BROWN, Nurse, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Darrell Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte 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 * 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). Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte because Williams “had a full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the matter” and Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his diabetes. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 971-72 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see also Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (if the harm is an isolated exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “‘ordinarily militates against a finding of deliberate indifference’” (citation omitted)); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057, 1060 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference). AFFIRMED. 2 15-16661

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.