Darryl Lee Goldstein v. SAYLOR, Dr., Chief Medical Officer, San Quentin;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DARRYL LEE GOLDSTEIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAYLOR, Dr., Chief Medical Officer, San
Quentin; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17575
D.C. No. 4:07-cv-05958-SBA
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17575 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 of 2 --