Case Name: Juan A. PORTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dave S. KHATRI; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-01
Citations: 373 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 09-55255
Parties: Juan A. PORTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dave S. KHATRI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 690–691

Head Matter:
Juan A. PORTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dave S. KHATRI; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-55255.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed April 1, 2010.
Juan Portillo, Imperial, CA, pro se.
Attorney General for the State of California, Esquire, Michael P. Cayaban, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Juan A. Portillo appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in 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. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Portillo did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Portillo while treating his kidney stones. See id. at 1057-58 (holding that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health and safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Portillo's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.