VICENTE ALVAREZ V. S. KO, No. 18-56019 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 14 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICENTE A. ALVAREZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-56019 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01302-CAB-NLS v. MEMORANDUM* S. KO, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Vicente A. Alvarez 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. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. * 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). 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Alvarez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to Alvarez’s complaints of chest pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); id. at 1058 (to prevail on a medical deliberate indifference claim “involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, a prisoner must show that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the prisoner’s] health” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as meritless Alvarez’s contention that the magistrate judge made improper credibility determinations. AFFIRMED. 2 18-56019

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.