STEVEN GONZALES V. GODWIN UGWUEZE, No. 14-15527 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVEN GONZALES, No. 14-15527 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01588-LJO-SKO v. MEMORANDUM* GODWIN UGWUEZE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Steven Gonzales 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. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. * 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). 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gonzales failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Ugwueze was deliberately indifferent to Gonzales’s knee pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; a mere difference in opinion between a prisoner and a physician concerning the appropriate course of treatment is insufficient); see also McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“A defendant must purposefully ignore or fail to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need in order for deliberate indifference to be established.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzales’s motion for appointment of an expert witness because Gonzales’s deliberate indifference claim was neither factually nor legally complex. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review). AFFIRMED. 2 14-15527
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.
