DAVID ARENBERG V. JEN FONTAINE, No. 16-15419 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID ARENBERG, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15419 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01344-DLR v. MEMORANDUM* JEN FONTAINE; ARSHAD TARIQ, Dr., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Former Arizona state prisoner David Arenberg 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 * 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 for defendant Tariq because Arenberg failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Tariq was deliberately indifferent to Arenberg’s rashes. See id. at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). To the extent Arenberg contends that he alleged a separate First Amendment retaliation claim, we reject this contention as unsupported by the record. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15419

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.