Jaime Estrada v. C. Clines

Ninth Circuit

Jaime Estrada v. C. Clines

559 F. App'x 637

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 2014

Docket12-17044

StatusUnpublished

This text of 559 F. App'x 637 (Jaime Estrada v. C. Clines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jaime Estrada v. C. Clines, 559 F. App'x 637 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jaime Ignacio Estrada appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his back pain and related 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), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Estrada did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s decisions regarding Estrada’s treatment for his back pain were “medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and [were] chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [Estrada’s] health.” Id. at 1058 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (a difference in medical opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference). Estrada also failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his need for a particular bunk placement. See id. at 1060 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; mere negligence does not suffice).

Estrada’s requests for judicial notice, filed on April 8, 2013, and January 15, 2014, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jaime Ignacio Estrada appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his back pain and related 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), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Estrada did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s decisions regarding Estrada’s treatment for his back pain were “medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and [were] chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [Estrada’s] health.” Id. at 1058 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (a difference in medical opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference). Estrada also failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his need for a particular bunk placement. See id. at 1060 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; mere negligence does not suffice).

Estrada’s requests for judicial notice, filed on April 8, 2013, and January 15, 2014, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 F. App'x 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaime-estrada-v-c-clines-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack