Nicolas Moran v. M. Levin
Nicolas MORAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. LEVIN, Medical Doctor; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Atsushi W. Tashima, Stephen S. Trott
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICOLAS MORAN, No. 08-55799 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01020-JM-POR v. MEMORANDUM * M. LEVIN, Medical Doctor; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2009 ** Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Nicolas Moran, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Moran’s deliberate indifference claims because the allegations set forth in his second amended complaint and the attachments thereto state, at most, a claim for malpractice or negligence. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”). Moreover, a difference in opinion between Moran and the prison physicians about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. See id. at 1058. Finally, as to defendant Athannassious, Moran failed to allege facts to show the sufficiently culpable state of mind that is required to establish deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).
Moran’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
JK/Research 2 08-55799