STEVEN WILHELM V. ARON ROTMAN, No. 15-16925 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVE WILHELM, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16925 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00001-DLB v. MEMORANDUM* ARON ROTMAN, Dr.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted February 14, 2017*** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Steve Wilhelm 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. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** 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). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Rotman because Wilhelm failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rotman was deliberately indifferent by causing a delay in Wilhelm’s hernia treatment. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference requires showing of harm “caused by” the alleged indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that delay led to further injury); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.”), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Wilhelm’s request for entry of default judgment, set forth in his reply brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-16925

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.