JAIME ESTRADA V. C. CLINES, No. 12-17044 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 03 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-17044 D.C. No. 5:10-cv-04832-LHK v. MEMORANDUM* C. MALO CLINES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy Koh, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÃ N, O SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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 back pain and related medical needs. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 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 did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant s decisions regarding Estrada s treatment for his back pain were medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and [were] chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [Estrada s] health. Id. at 1058 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (a difference in medical opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference). Estrada also failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his need for a particular bunk placement. See id. at 1060 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; mere negligence does not suffice). Estrada s requests for judicial notice, filed on April 8, 2013, and January 15, 2014, are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 12-17044

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.