Michael Edward Slaton v. Partida Jorge, in their individual capacities; QUINN ROSS

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL EDWARD SLATON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PARTIDA JORGE, in their individual
capacities; QUINN ROSS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56442
D.C. No. 5:10-cv-01071-UA -JCG
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
NOV 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56442 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 of 2 --