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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2013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