FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CION ADONIS PERALTA, No. 09-15014
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01809-CMK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R.P. GALLOWAY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge,** Presiding
***
Submitted February 16, 2010
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Peralta consented to the
jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tk/Research
Cion Adonis Peralta, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the
defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Dittman v.
California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1027 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Peralta’s action because his allegations
of inadequate care state, at most, a claim of negligence. See Wood v. Housewright,
900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (“While poor medical treatment will at a
certain point rise to the level of constitutional violation, mere malpractice, or even
gross negligence, does not suffice.”); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th
Cir. 1989) (holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Steckman v. Hart
Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998) (stating that the general rule
that parties are allowed to amend their pleadings does not extend to cases where
amendment would be futile).
Peralta’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
tk/Research 2 09-15014