JASON LACEY V. B. HAMKAR, No. 14-15470 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 26 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JASON LACEY, No. 14-15470 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01695-CMK v. MEMORANDUM* B. HAMKAR; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted February 17, 2015*** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Jason Lacey, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). indifference to his 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), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Lacey failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his pain and respiratory condition. See id. at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and is met only if the prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish that a difference of medical 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”). We reject Lacey’s contentions concerning ineffective assistance of counsel. See Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no right to effective assistance of counsel.”). AFFIRMED. 2 14-15470
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.
