Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10360543
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Hamilton v. Son
No. 10360543 · Decided March 20, 2025
No. 10360543·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
March 20, 2025
Citation
No. 10360543
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID HAMILTON, No. 23-3805
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:19-cv-02210-DAD-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M. SON, Doctor,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 17, 2025**
Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Hamilton 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Hamilton
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was
deliberately indifferent in treating Hamilton’s chronic pain. See id. at 1057-60
(prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard
a risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of
opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner
alleging deliberate indifference on the basis of delay in treatment must show that
the delay caused significant harm).
We do not consider claims that Hamilton failed to allege in his complaint.
See Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 969 (9th Cir. 2006)
(affirming summary judgment where the complaint did not give fair notice of the
factual basis for a claim raised for the first time in opposition to summary
judgment).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-3805
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C.
02Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 17, 2025** Before: CANBY, R.
03California state prisoner David Hamilton appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C.
04§ 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Hamilton v. Son in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 20, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10360543 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.