SIEGFRIED PEDERSEN V. STEVE BRUNGER, No. 12-35444 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIEGFRIED PEDERSEN, No. 12-35444 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00110-TMB v. MEMORANDUM * STEVE BRUNGER; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 14, 2013 ** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Alaska state prisoner Siegfried Pedersen 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 U.S.C. * 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). § 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, even assuming Pedersen had a serious medical need, Pedersen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants failed to respond adequately to his injured shoulder. 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). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration because Pedersen failed to establish any ground for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and discussing grounds for reconsideration). Pedersen s contentions concerning the district court s evidentiary and procedural rulings are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 12-35444
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.
