Victor Jose Quintana v. Eric Espinosa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR JOSE QUINTANA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC ESPINOSA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-16640
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03221-KJM-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Victor Jose Quintana, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his 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.
FILED
MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Quintana
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Espinosa was
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she
“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”); Toguchi,
391 F.3d at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of
. . . negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the
Eighth Amendment.”).
AFFIRMED.
13-16640 2

-- 2 of 2 --