NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK LEE JACKSON, No. 18-15650
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00526-NC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PHUC LAM, M.D.; L. HEDDEN, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 22, 2018***
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Frederick Lee Jackson 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 under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 Jackson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his knee pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend for
Jackson to add a retaliation claim because amendment would be futile. See
Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that a district court “acts within its discretion to
deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Jackson’s contention concerning bias
of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15650
Frederick Jackson v. Phuc Lam
Combined Opinion