Jeremy Gauthier v. John Stiles
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Adams v. Lanum (District Court, W.D. Washington 2025)
- Mendiola v. Villagomez (District Court, Northern Mariana Islands 2024)
- (PC) Price v. Iqbal (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2023)
- Braulick v. Rees (District Court, D. Montana 2023)
- (PC) Torres v. Patel (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2020)
- Flentoil v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Corrections (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2020)
- Joseph v. Clayton (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
- Sekerke v. Leo (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Jeremy Gauthier, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by various prison medical personnel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gauthier’s action because neither his disagreement with the dosage or type of pain medicine administered after his nose surgery, nor his dissatisfaction with the denial of prescription strength pain medicine for two days, constituted deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Toguehi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (difference in opinion between an inmate and medical personnel insufficient to constitute indifference to medical needs); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 1998) (alleged delays in administering pain medication, without more, do not constitute deliberate indifference).
The district court also properly dismissed Gauthier’s action with prejudice because the defects in his claim could not be cured by amendment. See McKesson HBOC v. New York State Common Ret. Fund, 339 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).
Gauthier’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.