Jaime Ignacio Estrada v. LINDA CAROL ROWE, M.D., Pelican Bay State Prison Doctor;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LINDA CAROL ROWE, M.D., Pelican
Bay State Prison Doctor; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15216
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02801-MMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jaime Ignacio Estrada 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
JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-15216 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 Estrada
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’
treatment of Estrada’s chronic lower back pain evinced deliberate indifference.
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 Estrada’s contentions that the district court improperly denied his
motion for appointment of counsel and medical expert and his motion to strike,
misapplied the deliberate indifference standard, and erred in reviewing the
pleadings and evidence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --