MARK CLEARMAN V. ELLEN FERNANDO, No. 10-55522 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 06 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK ANTHONY CLEARMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-55522 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-05633-AG-JEM v. MEMORANDUM * MS. ELLEN FERNANDO; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Mark Anthony Clearman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), * 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). alleging deliberate indifference to 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 Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Clearman did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs regarding the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of his shoulder injury. See Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances . . . and . . . that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner s] health (citations omitted)). Clearman s remaining contentions, including that the district court failed to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to him, are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 10-55522

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.