Jesus Estevez v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, Chief United States District Judge**
for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JESUS ESTEVEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15758
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-01553-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted January 15, 2013***
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jesus Estevez 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
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15758 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 Estevez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent regarding any denial, delay, or interference with Estevez’s
ability to receive back surgery or ongoing pain management. 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).
We reject Estevez’s contentions that the district court erred in its denial of
Estevez’s motion for injunctive relief, denial of judicial notice of his state court
habeas proceeding, or application of the deliberate indifference standard.
Estevez’s motion for oral argument is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --