NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE WASHINGTON, No. 18-16910
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00725-DAD-
BAM
v.
P. ROUCH, Nurse Practitioner; C. MEMORANDUM*
SISODIA, Physicians Assistant,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
N. HOLLAND,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Washington, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 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 Washington
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Rouch
and Sisodia were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain and flat feet condition.
See id. at 1057-60 (explaining medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of
opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference); id. at 1058 (explaining “a prisoner must show that the chosen course
of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and was chosen
in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner’s] health.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Defendants’ motion to strike new evidence on appeal (Docket Entry No. 11)
is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2