Antoine L. Henderson v. K. Purcell;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTOINE L. HENDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
K. PURCELL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17567
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02779-LKK-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Antoine L. Henderson 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
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17567 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 Henderson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants failed to
diagnose and respond adequately to his back and groin pain. See id. at 1058
(prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard
an excessive risk to inmate health); 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); Roberts v. Spalding, 783 F.2d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 1986) (a
prisoner has no constitutional right to outside medical care to supplement the
medical care provided by the prison).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --