Juan A. Portillo v. Dave S. Khatri;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LSS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN A. PORTILLO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVE S. KHATRI; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55255
D.C. No. 3:06-CV-02760-BTM-
CAB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry Ted Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Juan A. Portillo appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
FILED
APR 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LSS/Research 09-55255 2
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 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 Portillo did
not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to Portillo while treating his kidney stones. See id. at
1057–58 (holding that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety, and a
difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount
to deliberate indifference).
Portillo’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --