Donald R. Walker v. DONALD POM PAN, M.D. (Orthopedic Surgeon);

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DONALD R. WALKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONALD POM PAN, M.D. (Orthopedic
Surgeon); et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15961
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01425-TEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Donald R. Walker 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.
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15961 2
§ 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 Walker
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent when they denied him knee replacement surgery after he
had received arthroscopic surgery to repair his knee. 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 --