MICHAEL SLATON V. QUINN ROSS, No. 10-56442 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL EDWARD SLATON, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-56442 D.C. No. 5:10-cv-01071-UA -JCG v. MEMORANDUM * PARTIDA JORGE, in their individual capacities; QUINN ROSS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Michael Edward Slaton, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. * 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). 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, O Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Slaton leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Slaton s proposed complaint failed to allege properly that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health with regard to the diet available to Slaton. See id. at 616-17; see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (to state a claim for deliberate indifference, inmate must allege that defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health ; mere disagreement between inmate and physician regarding course of treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference (citation omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 10-56442

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.