United States v. 2020-01-14 | 18-56019 | VICENTE ALVAREZ V. S. KO | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICENTE A. ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

S. KO, M.D.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56019

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Vicente A. Alvarez 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 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

*
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).
FILED

JAN 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-56019
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Alvarez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Alvarez’s complaints of chest pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a
prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference
of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference); id. at 1058 (to prevail on a medical deliberate indifference claim
“involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner must show
that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the
prisoner’s] health” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as meritless Alvarez’s contention that the magistrate judge made
improper credibility determinations.
AFFIRMED.