Clarence Davis v. Carman Sutley, No. 09-55545 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 25 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLARENCE DAVIS, No. 09-55545 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-01415-CBMRNB v. CARMAN SUTLEY, Dentist, MEMORANDUM * Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Clarence Davis, 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 in connection with his dental treatment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 * 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). (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because Davis failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating his dental pain. See id. at 1057. A difference in medical opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1059-60; see also Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) ( A difference of opinion between a prisoner-patient and prison medical authorities regarding treatment does not give rise to a [section] 1983 claim. ). Moreover, a showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060. Davis s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 09-55545

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.