Juan Portillo v. Dave Khatri
Juan A. PORTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dave S. KHATRI; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Mary M. Schroeder (author), Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Harry Pregerson
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FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN A. PORTILLO, No. 09-55255 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-CV-02760-BTM- CAB v. DAVE S. KHATRI; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Barry Ted Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2010 ** Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Juan A. Portillo appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Portillo did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Portillo while treating his kidney stones. See id. at 1057–58 (holding that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety, and a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
Portillo’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
LSS/Research 2 09-55255