PETER ROSS V. CHARLES RYAN, No. 19-16572 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER KENNETH ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-16572 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03503-SPL-MHB v. MEMORANDUM* CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2019** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Peter Kenneth Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 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 a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. * 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). Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ross’s action because Ross failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating Ross’s insomnia in 2006 and 2007. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (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). AFFIRMED. 2 19-16572
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.
