Salvador Solis v. DANIEL PARAMO, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR SOLIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DANIEL PARAMO, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-56256
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01888-DMS-
WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Salvador Solis 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. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
FILED
JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Solis’s action because Solis failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to
his pain following knee surgery. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58,
1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and is met
only if the defendant knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate’s
health; a mere difference in opinion concerning the course of treatment is
insufficient).
AFFIRMED.
13-56256 2

-- 2 of 2 --