Unpublished Disposition, 902 F.2d 39 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Steven R. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Samuel A. LEWIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 1990.* Decided April 27, 1990.
Before TANG, NELSON and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Steven R. King, appeals pro se the district court's grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. King contends that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We affirm.
King is an inmate at the Arizona State Prison Complex who is afflicted with the skin disease porphyria. King filed an amended complaint which detailed the medical care that he received at the institution and his objections to the treatments. The complaint acknowledges that over an 8-month period, he was seen by physician assistants ten times; had five different lab tests, and was seen by outside medical consultants three times.
The district court concluded that the allegations in the amended complaint did not amount to a violation of King's constitutional rights.1 We review de novo. Kruso v. Int'l Tel & Tel Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989).
We agree with the district court that King can allege no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. See Experimental Engineering v. United Technologies, 614 F.2d 1244, 1246 (9th Cir. 1980). King's amended complaint demonstrates that he has received medical treatment. His main complaint is that this treatment is inadequate. However, differences in judgment between an inmate and prison medical personnel does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See Shields v. Kunkel, 442 F.2d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1971).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 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 9th Cir.R. 36-3
The district court also concluded that none of the defendants were personally involved in treating King. Because we conclude that King cannot allege an eighth amendment claim against any defendants, we need not address this issue