Unpublished Disposition, 889 F.2d 1094 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 889 F.2d 1094 (9th Cir. 1989)

Malcolm CROCKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.A.A. STAGNER, Superintendent of CTF North; Carrillo, M.H.,Chief Deputy; Bruce S., Deputy Associate; Solgaard, ChiefMed. Officer, also described as Staff Physician; Garnett,B.R., Corr. Officer, CTF-N, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-15141.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 23, 1989.* Decided Nov. 21, 1989.

Before ALARCON, O'SCANNLAN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


Appellant Crockett, a California state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for alleged violations of his eighth amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Crockett claims that seven staff physicians at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad failed to prescribe the medication "Norpace" for his irregular heart beats and that this constituted "deliberate indifference" to his serious medical needs.

The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Crockett's complaint with prejudice. Crockett now appeals pro se from the district court's judgment.

* A prisoner's complaint regarding medical treatment is cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a violation of the eighth amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment if the complaint alleges deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). However, deliberate indifference "must be substantial to violate the [C]onstitution, and state prison authorities have wide discretion regarding the nature and extent of medical treatment." Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the appellees were deliberately indifferent to Crockett's serious medical needs. Crockett's contention that the physicians should have prescribed "Norpace" is only a difference of opinion regarding his treatment. However, a mere difference of opinion between the inmate and the prison's medical staff regarding treatment does not support a claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

Crockett has failed to provide evidence showing that there is a genuine dispute of material facts. The district court, therefore, did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees.



The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3