Fred Jackson v. Robert Bowman, et al, No. 09-17366 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 24 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRED JAY JACKSON, No. 09-17366 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:07-cv-00961-SBA v. MEMORANDUM * ROBERT BOWMAN, et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Fred Jay Jackson, a California state prisoner, 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 in violation of the Eighth Amendment. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jackson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his broken finger. See id. at 1057. A difference in opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at 1059-60. Moreover, a showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 1060. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further discovery because Jackson did not show how allowing him additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1998). Jackson s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Jackson s request for judicial notice is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 09-17366

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.