Antonio Luis Williams v. L. Gamboa, M.d.; Kim Kumar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L. GAMBOA, M.D.; KIM KUMAR,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
J. CHUDY; J. LEWIN,
Defendants.
No. 18-17430
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-04050-LHK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Antonio Luis Williams appeals pro se from the
* 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).
FILED
SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-17430
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. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016).
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 his medical needs resulting from the
mass on his neck. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004)
(holding deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be
aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health).
Contrary to Williams’s contentions, there was no basis for the district court
to enter default against defendants Drs. Kumar and Gamboa.
We reject as meritless Williams’s contentions that the district court should
not have dismissed defendant Dr. Chudy because Williams voluntarily dismissed
him from the action.
To the extent the district court erred by stating in its November 26, 2018
order that Williams did not oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
by not explicitly ruling on Williams’s April 11, 2018 filing, these errors were
harmless.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-17430
Williams’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --