Gwen v. Cattolico
── Gwen v. Cattolico ──
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date: May 06, 2026
Category: General
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 6 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALD VAUGHN GWEN, No. 25-1905
D.C. No. 3:24-cv-08023-JAT--JFM
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEON CATTOLICO; BECKY PAYNE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2026**
Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Gerald Vaughn Gwen 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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v.
*
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).
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gwen’s action because Gwen failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs in connection with COVID-19 and a cervical spine
condition. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004)
(explaining that officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and
disregard an excessive risk to the inmate’s health, and that negligence or a
difference of medical opinion is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
Contrary to Gwen’s contentions, the district court did not err in denying
Gwen’s motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing the original complaint.
We reject as unsupported by the record Gwen’s contentions that the district
court was biased against him and violated his constitutional rights.
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 25-1905
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works
the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel
opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own
address as its source and its own type. #}