Juan Espinoza v. Zahed Ahmed

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ESPINOZA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ZAHED AHMED,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-15689
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05047-JST
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Juan Espinoza 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
MAR 04 2016
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 --

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Espinoza
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Dr.
Ahmed was deliberately indifferent to Espinoza’s hemorrhoid condition. See id. at
1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and
disregards 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).
Espinoza’s request for this court to investigate whether defendant prescribed
stool softeners, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
15-15689 2

-- 2 of 2 --