Tylerv.Andreasen

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitMar 8, 2010
370 Fed. Appx. 776 (9th Cir. 2010)

Cases citing this document

How cited

  • Tyler v. Knowles

    Tyler v. Andreasen, No. CIV S-06-1883 MCE EFB P, ECF No. 36 (E.D. Cal. filed Sept. 30, 2008), aff'd, Tyler…

1 Citing case

No. 08-17370.

Submitted February 16, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 8, 2010.

Elonza Jesse Tyler, Avenal, CA, pro se.

Kevin W. Reager, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01883-MCE-EFB.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Elonza Jesse Tyler, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for prison medical officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 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 because Tyler failed to raise a triable issue as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs concerning his knees. See id. at 1058 ("[T]o prevail on a claim involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner's] health.") (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original).

Tyler's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.