Alvin R. Ross v. WILLIAM McGUINNESS, Chief Medical Officer & Medical Doctor;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Mary H. Murguia, United States Circuit Judge for the**
Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
The panel unanimously concludes that 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALVIN R. ROSS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM McGUINNESS, Chief Medical
Officer & Medical Doctor; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16017
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00306-MHM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 21, 2012***
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alvin R. Ross appeals pro se from the district
FILED
MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-16017 2
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.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ross’s deliberate
indifference claims because Ross failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants knew of and consciously disregarded his serious medical
needs related to his shoulder injury and pain. See id. at 1057-58, 1060 (deliberate
indifference is a high legal standard; mistakes, negligence, or malpractice by
medical professionals are not sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference, nor is
an inmate’s difference of opinion with the physician regarding the appropriate
course of treatment).
To the extent that Ross contended that defendant McGuinness violated
Ross’s constitutional rights in reviewing and responding to Ross’s grievance about
his medical care, the district court properly granted summary judgment because
such allegations cannot give rise to a § 1983 claim. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334
F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (§ 1983 claim based on the processing of inmate
appeals has no constitutional foundation because inmates lack a constitutional
entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-16017 3
Ross’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Ross’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is
denied. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth
“exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --