Case Name: Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE, Psychiatrist; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-30
Citations: 320 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 08-15586
Parties: Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE, Psychiatrist; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
Carlos HENDON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE, Psychiatrist; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-15586.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 30, 2009.
Carlos Hendon, Represa, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carlos Hendon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hendon's deliberate indifference claims because the allegation set forth in his complaint and the attachments thereto that defendants improperly released him from suicide watch, state, at most, a claim for negligence. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) ("A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment."). Moreover, a difference in opinion between Hendon and the prison physicians about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1058.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.