Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garcia v. Marshall

*fn* submitted: August 11, 1993.

VINCENT GARCIA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES D. MARSHALL, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. CV-90-03074-EFL. Eugene F. Lynch, District Judge, Presiding

Before: Pregerson, Brunetti and Rymer, Circuit Judges

MEMORANDUM

Vincent Garcia appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Garcia argues that there are facts which could support a verdict in his favor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Deliberate indifference to medical needs must constitute "unneccessary and wanton infliction of pain" to violate the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Wood v. Sunn, 865 F.2d 982, 989 (9th Cir. 1988). Negligence or medical malpractice, without more, do not support a deliberate indifference claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Garcia, we agree with the district court that Garcia does not raise any issue of material fact which would permit a jury to conclude that personnel at Pelican Bay State Prison were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Garcia received regular medical examinations and physical therapy treatments after surgery for a knee injury, and was provided with a knee brace and wheelchair. The restriction of Garcia's use of the wheelchair and knee brace for security reasons does not constitute deliberate indifference.

In reaching this Conclusion, we do not consider events which occurred subsequent to the district court's judgment, as Garcia urges, because such matters are outside the record on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). Furthermore, because we agree with the district court that there was no Eighth Amendment violation, we do not consider whether defendant Marshall may be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior.*fn1

AFFIRMED.

Disposition

AFFIRME ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.