William Ratcliff v. JONATHAN E. AKANNO, Individually and Official Capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM RATCLIFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JONATHAN E. AKANNO, Individually
and Official Capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-17099
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00584-LJO-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Ratcliff 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
OCT 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-17099
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ratcliff
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-60
(holding deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard” requiring a defendant be
aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical
malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); id. at 1058 (explaining “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)); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1087 (9th Cir. 2014)
(reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not constitute deliberate
indifference).
We reject as meritless Ratcliff’s contentions that the district court
improperly disregarded portions of his declaration and the declarations of other
prison inmates, made erroneous factual findings, and improperly viewed the
evidence in granting summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --