Case ID: f-appx_559/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jaime Ignacio ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Malo CLINES, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-17044.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed March 3, 2014.
    Jaime Ignacio Estrada, Delano, CA, pro se.
    Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Martin Kosla, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Jaime Ignacio Estrada appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his back pain and related medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Estrada did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s decisions regarding Estrada’s treatment for his back pain were “medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and [were] chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [Estrada’s] health.” Id. at 1058 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (a difference in medical opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference). Estrada also failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his need for a particular bunk placement. See id. at 1060 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; mere negligence does not suffice).

Estrada’s requests for judicial notice, filed on April 8, 2013, and January 15, 2014, are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.