Case ID: f-appx_577/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victor Jose QUINTANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16640.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 29, 2014.
    Victor Jose Quintana, Avenal, CA, pro se.
    Shareef Farag, Julie Fleming, Timothy James Krai, Esquire, Eugene Philip Ramirez, Esquire, Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Jose Quintana, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his 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 Quintana failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Espinosa was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety!’); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of ... negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”).

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