Samonte v. Bauman, 011808 FED09, 06-16697

Docket Nº:06-16697
Party Name:LAEL SAMONTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAY BAUMAN; LINDA C. LINGLE, Governor, Defendants - Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: B. FLETCHER, CANBY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 18, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

LAEL SAMONTE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KAY BAUMAN; LINDA C. LINGLE, Governor, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 06-16697

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 18, 2008

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted December 5, 2007 San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii D.C. No. CV-05-00309-HG/KSC Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

Before: B. FLETCHER, CANBY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Leal Samonte brought this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief against Dr. Kay Bauman and Hawai’i Governor Laura Lingle under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Samonte alleged that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exhibiting deliberate indifference toward Samonte’s serious medical D.C. No. CV-05-00309-HG/KSC needs while Samonte was in prison at the Halawa Correctional Facility in Hawai’i. The district court dismissed Samonte’s claim for injunctive relief, dismissed his claim against the governor, and granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Bauman. Samonte now appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

I. Deliberate Indifference

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See Arakaki v. Hawaii, 314 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Dr. Bauman because no rational trier of fact could find that Dr. Bauman’s actions constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.1 To show deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the indifference.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). During Dr. Bauman’s tenure as medical director at Halawa, Samonte waited three months for his eye doctor appointment. When Samonte did eventually meet Dr. Nakamoto, the doctor recommended that Samonte get bifocals and have an annual follow-up exam. The record contains no evidence that the delay involved purposeful failure to respond to pain or that it caused Samonte any additional harm or permanent damage.

Samonte also claims that the significant delay prior to his eye surgeries, over two years from his initial complaint until his pterygium surgery and...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP