HENDERSON v. SPRAGUE (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Daryl D. Henderson 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. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Henderson's action because Henderson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Dr. Sprague was deliberately indifferent to Henderson's chronic nasal congestion and pain. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that deliberate indifference is a high legal standard and a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit).

We reject as unsupported by the record Henderson's contentions that defendant prepared and offered false evidence in these proceedings.

AFFIRMED.