Scott v. Edwards

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 30 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE RENEE SCOTT, No. 25-2111

D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:20-cv-00317-JLT-HBK v.

MEMORANDUM* CHARLES EDWARDS; T. YOUNG; L.

CHIU; G. WOODS; GUADALUPE M.

GARCIA; K. HASHEM; P. SHEERAN; ANDERSON RICE; G. CHEUNG; ERIC WONG; K. GERMANS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Andre Renee Scott appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 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, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Scott failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating Scott’s dental condition. See id. at 1092 (“[A] difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner—or between medical professionals—concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference. Rather, to show deliberate indifference the plaintiff must show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that the defendants chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the plaintiff’s health.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2111