Sy Lee Castle v. M. RAMIREZ, Correctional Nurse;

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).
rgs/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SY LEE CASTLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. RAMIREZ, Correctional Nurse; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-56435
No. 3:08-cv-00347-DMS-POR
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Sy Lee Castle, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming
FILED
MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

rgs/Research 08-56435 2
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and equal protection violations.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Castle’s deliberate indifference claim
because Castle cannot allege that Nurses Ramirez, Cerrillo, and Lopez denied him
his prescription pain medicine in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his
health, as required by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Rather, the
record shows, and Castle admits, that they were enforcing the prison rule that
inmates be admitted to the infirmary to receive this pain medication, which Castle
refused to do for approximately one month. Castle’s preference as to the location
of his treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference, see Jackson v.
McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996), and any alleged negligence in the
nurses’ failure to administer a crushed form of the medicine to Castle on an
outpatient basis is also insufficient to constitute deliberate indifference, see Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
The district court also properly dismissed Castle’s equal protection claim.

-- 2 of 3 --

rgs/Research 08-56435 3
Castle fails to plead facts suggesting that the nurses intentionally discriminated
against him or that he was part of a protected class, as required by Bell v. Wolfish,
441 U.S. 520, 545 (1979).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --