Williams v. Ogbuehi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERRY WILLIAMS, No. 24-3880 D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* CLEMENT OGBUEHI, Physician Assistant at Kern Valley State Prison; WAYNE ULIT, Medical Doctor at Kern Valley State Prison; L. MOORE, Correctional Lieutenant at Kern Valley State Prison; R. RIVERA, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison; R. AARON, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. * 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).  Former California state prisoner Gerry Williams 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 the district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Williams’s claims of hepatitis C and liver cirrhosis. 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 v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (an assertion that is “blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it” will not create a genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment). AFFIRMED. 2 24-3880