Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Burgess v. Johnson
Citation: 314 F. App'x 33Docket: No. 07-15558
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 21, 2008; Federal Appellate Court
Dwayne Lamont Burgess, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's summary judgment favoring the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, which alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the case de novo, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to defendant Chisum, noting that evidence of medical misdiagnosis and differing medical opinions do not constitute deliberate indifference. Citing precedents, the court reiterated that mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical issue does not violate a prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights and that differing opinions on treatment do not equate to deliberate indifference. Additionally, the court upheld the summary judgment for defendants Bledsoe, Pugh, and Johnson, determining that Burgess did not present sufficient evidence to show that these defendants disregarded a serious medical need or that any delay or denial of treatment caused further injury. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Burgess's motion for appointment of counsel, as he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting such assistance. The judgment is affirmed, and the disposition is not published and does not set a precedent except as outlined in Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.