FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO ALONSO GONZALES, No. 12-55118
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02903-DSF-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERT AYERS, Warden, official
capacity,
Defendant,
and
SCHUTZER, PHD Surgeon, official
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
*
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).
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Alonso Gonzales, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious 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. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gonzales’ action because Gonzales
failed to show in his second amended complaint and its attachments that
defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Deliberate
indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or
negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth
Amendment.”); see also Wilhem v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012)
(difference of opinion as to which medical course of action should be pursued does
not give rise to a deliberate indifference claim).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-55118