N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL ALAN YOC OM , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R ANDY GR OUNDS, W arde n; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15932 D.C . No. 4:10-c v-03609-SB A M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Sa undra B . Arm strong, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2014 ** B e fore : PR EGER SON, LEAVY, a n d M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Form e r C a lifornia

sta te prisone r M ic h a e l Ala

n Yoc om a

ppe a ls pro se from the d istric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g i ng de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds a nd due proc e ss viola

tions in c onne c tion with prison disc iplina

ry proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . 

# FIL ED MAR 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Pe te rson v . C alifornia , 604 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th C ir. 2010) (judgm e nt on the p l e a dings); Toguc h i v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004) (sum

m a ry judgm e nt). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt to de fe nda

nt R e c e ive r Ke lso on Yoc om ’ s de libe rate indiffe re nc e c la i m be c a u se Yoc om

fa i le d to ra ise a ge nuine d ispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r Ke lso wa s de libe rate ly indiffe re nt to Yoc om ’ s c o m

pla ints c onc e rning m e dic ations to tre at his m e nta l he a lth issue s. Se e Toguc hi , 391 F.3d a

t 1058 (c la i m

of de libe rate indiffe re nc e re quire s showing tha t the o ffic ia l kne w of a

n d disre ga

rde d a n e xc e ssive risk to a

n inm ate ’ s he a lth; a prisone r’ s diffe re nc e of opinion c onc e rning thec ourse of tre at m e nt doe s not am ount to de l ibe rate indiffe re nc e ); se ealso Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (disc ussing there quire m e nts for e sta blishing supe

rvisory lia bility). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d judgm e nt on theple a dings to the re m a ining de fe nda

nts be c a use Yoc om

is ba rre d from re litiga ting the sam e de libe rat e indiffe re nc e and due proc e ss issue s a nd c l a im s pre v iously

de c ide d on the m e rits in his sta

te ha be a s pe titions. Se eGonzale s v . C al. De p’t of C orr. , 739 F.3d 1226, 1231-34 (9th C ir. 2014) (holding tha t C a l ifornia ’ s rule s re ga

rding issueand c la im pre c lusion a

pply to prior sta

te ha be a s de c isions, a

nd c onc luding tha

t pla intiff

1 2 - 1 5 9 3 2 2wa s pre c lude d from re litiga ting unde r § 1983 his c la im s tha t ha d be e n litiga

te d a nd de c ide d on them e rits in his prior sta te ha be a s pe tition). Yoc om ’ s re que st for judic ia l notic e , se t forth in his re p l y brie f, is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 5 9 3 2 3