FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME LEDESMA ZEPEDA, No. 11-16768
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00982-SMM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
M. O’BRIEN, Medical Doctor;
SECRETARY OF CDCR,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jamie Ledesma Zepeda appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Zepeda’s action because his third
amended complaint failed to allege facts suggesting that defendants’ treatment of
Zepeda’s stomach ailment constituted deliberate indifference. See Jackson v.
McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A] plaintiff’s showing of nothing
more than a difference of medical opinion as to the need to pursue one course of
treatment over another was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish deliberate
indifference.” (internal quotations omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zepeda’s motion for
reconsideration because Zepeda failed to show grounds warranting reconsideration.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth elements for reconsideration and standard of review).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by refusing to take judicial
notice of Zepeda’s proposed fourth amended complaint because the court reviewed
the complaint and concluded that it would not assist the court in ruling on Zepeda’s
motion for reconsideration. See Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 458
(9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standard of review).
2 11-16768
Zepeda’s remaining contentions, including those concerning the “law of the
case” doctrine, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16768