Amadeo Sanchez v. State of Nevada; Nevada Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMADEO SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA; NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants,
and
MICHAEL B. KOEHN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17194
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00273-LRH-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUL 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Nevada state prisoner Amadeo Sanchez 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sanchez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew that
Sanchez faced a substantial risk of serious harm to his health arising from his
Hepatitis C condition, and consciously disregarded such a risk. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835, 842 (1994) (a prison official acts with deliberate
indifference only if “he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm
and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”);
Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (difference of opinion between a prisoner and medical
authorities regarding the course of treatment does not constitute deliberate
indifference; rather, the prisoner must establish that the chosen course of treatment
“was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Sanchez’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged failure to review
his evidence and rely only on defendants’ “fabricated” evidence, and defendants’
12-17194 2

-- 2 of 3 --

allegedly improper opposition to his motion to extend his prison “copy work
account,” are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
12-17194 3

-- 3 of 3 --