Mark F. Shehata v. MATTHEW CATE, Sec’y Dept of Correc.;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK F. SHEHATA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, Sec’y Dept of
Correc.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56799
D.C. No. 5:10-cv-01246-RGK -
MLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Mark F. Shehata, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action alleging that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56799 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shehata’s claims against defendants
Nguyen, Green and Conanan because Shehata failed to allege facts suggesting that
they knew of and purposefully disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal
standard; mistakes, negligence or malpractice do not rise to an Eighth Amendment
violation, nor does a difference of opinion about the preferred course of treatment).
The district court properly dismissed Shehata’s claims against defendants
Cate, Poulos, Hartley, Farooq and Chapnick because Shehata failed to allege that
they were personally involved in any alleged deprivation of his constitutional
rights. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (supervisory
official may be liable under § 1983 only if he was personally involved in the
constitutional deprivation, or if there is “a sufficient causal connection between the
supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation”).
Shehata’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --