Jesse Washington v. P. ROUCH, Nurse Practitioner; C. SISODIA, Physicians Assistant

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
P. ROUCH, Nurse Practitioner; C.
SISODIA, Physicians Assistant,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
N. HOLLAND,
Defendant.
No. 18-16910
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00725-DAD-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Washington, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
* 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).
FILED
JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Washington
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Rouch
and Sisodia were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain and flat feet condition.
See id. at 1057-60 (explaining medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of
opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference); id. at 1058 (explaining “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)).
Defendants’ motion to strike new evidence on appeal (Docket Entry No. 11)
is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --