Slack v. Kariko

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TOMMIE SLACK, No. 23-1509 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05508-RSM Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* SARAH KARIKO, Dr.; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2025** Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Former Washington state prisoner Tommie Slack appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm * 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). on any basis supported by the record. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom, 919 F.3d 1148, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm. Summary judgment was proper because Slack failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating Slack’s lipomas and pain. See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that a difference of opinion between a physician and a prisoner concerning appropriate medical care does not amount to deliberate indifference); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 (explaining that a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Slack’s motion for reconsideration because Slack failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-1509