Darryl Goldstein v. Saylor

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DARRYL LEE GOLDSTEIN, No. 11-17575 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:07-cv-05958-SBA v. MEMORANDUM * SAYLOR, Dr., Chief Medical Officer, San Quentin; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Saundra Brown Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2013 ** Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Darryl Lee Goldstein, a California state prisoner, 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 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). 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 Goldstein failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain and condition. See id. at 1060 (“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.”); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish that a difference of opinion amounted to deliberate indifference, a prisoner must show that the defendants’ chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17575