ANTOINE HENDERSON V. K. PURCELL, No. 11-17567 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 23 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS ANTOINE L. HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 11-17567 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02779-LKKDAD v. MEMORANDUM * K. PURCELL; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 16, 2013 ** Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Antoine L. Henderson 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. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). 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 Henderson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants failed to diagnose and respond adequately to his back and groin pain. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health); 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 defendants chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner s health); Roberts v. Spalding, 783 F.2d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 1986) (a prisoner has no constitutional right to outside medical care to supplement the medical care provided by the prison). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17567

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.