Peter Kenneth Ross v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER KENNETH ROSS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-16572
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03503-SPL-MHB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16572
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 of 2 --