875 F. 2d 870 - Pratt v. Dr Solgaard Ctf a Ctf J
875 F2d 870 Pratt v. Dr Solgaard Ctf a Ctf J
875 F.2d 870
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Larry PRATT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DR. SOLGAARD, the Chief Medical Officer at CTF Central in
Soledad, Ca.; A. Stagner, the Superintendent of CTF Central
in Soledad, Ca.; Dr. Williams, the Chief Medical Officer at
San Quentin; Mr. Pulley, the Warden of San Quentin; J.
McCarthy, the Director of the California Department of
Corrections, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 87-1905.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 19, 1989.*
Filed May 24, 1989.
Before: SNEED, FLETCHER and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
Larry Pratt, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Pratt claimed the defendants caused him to suffer cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. In support of this claim he alleged the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need for the surgical removal of keloids. We affirm.
Pratt's prison medical records show that from the time he was incarcerated in 1975, until the time he filed his present complaint, he frequently sought and received medical attention for his keloids. He asked repeatedly that the keloids be removed surgically. Some physicians recommended that the surgery be performed; others recommended against it. A major concern was that the requested surgery, which was elective and cosmetic in nature, might result in keloids worse than Pratt already had. Accordingly, treatment was provided by cortisone injections, cortisone cream, massage, hot packs, antibiotic cream, mineral oil and a jobst stocking. But, according to Pratt's complaint, surgery was not performed.1
Prisoners can establish a section 1983 claim under the eighth amendment with respect to a failure to provide medical care if they can show there has been deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. Hunt v. Dental Dep't, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.1989). Deliberate indifference involves more than mere negligence; it "involves the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.' " Wood v. Sunn, 865 F.2d 982, 989 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner's serious medical needs when they "deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment." Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir.1988).
State prison authorities have wide discretion regarding the nature and extent of medical treatment. Jones v. Johnson, 781 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986). A difference of opinion between a patient and a physician regarding appropriate medical treatment, without more, is insufficient to state a claim under section 1983. Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981).
Because Pratt's complaint states no more than a difference of opinion between Pratt and the physicians who considered the appropriate treatment for Pratt's keloids, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against Pratt. See id.
AFFIRMED.
Advertisement
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Pratt has submitted documents with his appellate brief which reflect that part of the surgery Pratt requested was in fact performed after he filed his complaint. These documents were not part of the district court record, and accordingly are not part of the record to be considered on appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 10(a). Furthermore, these documents do not demonstrate deliberate indifference, but rather that when surgery was deemed necessary, it was provided