Siegfried Pedersen v. Steve Brunger;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIEGFRIED PEDERSEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEVE BRUNGER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35444
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00110-TMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alaska state prisoner Siegfried Pedersen 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.
FILED
MAY 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-35444 2
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even
assuming Pedersen had a serious medical need, Pedersen failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants failed to respond adequately to his
injured shoulder. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference
only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health); Jackson v.
McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish that a difference of
opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must show that the
defendants’ chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in
conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for
reconsideration because Pedersen failed to establish any ground for such relief.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and discussing grounds for
reconsideration).
Pedersen’s contentions concerning the district court’s evidentiary and
procedural rulings are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --