Joseph L. Mizzoni v. ROMEO ARANAS, NDOC Medical Director;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH L. MIZZONI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROMEO ARANAS, NDOC Medical
Director; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
STATE OF NEVADA,
Defendant.
No. 19-16506
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01482-JAD-NJK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Former Nevada state prisoner Joseph L. Mizzoni appeals pro se from the
* 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16506
district 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. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of
San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-motions for summary
judgment); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court’s
decision on qualified immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Mizzoni
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in treating Mizzoni’s Hepatitis C. See Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference is a “high
legal standard” requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk
to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference);
Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (for a difference of opinion
to amount to deliberate indifference, the plaintiff “must show that the course of
treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances”
and “that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to [the
prisoner’s] health” (internal citations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --