Court Opinion

ID: 2655334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-03-04 01:01:00.074154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:03.051132
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 03 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA,                           No. 12-17044

               Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:10-cv-04832-LHK

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
C. MALO CLINES,

               Defendant - Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                       Lucy Koh, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted February 18, 2014**

Before:        ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

       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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.

                                           2                                      12-17044