22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T502,MEMORANDUM Pedro Alonso Gonzales, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e) and 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Gonzales’ action because Gonzales failed to show in his second amended complaint and its attachments that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2004) (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir.2012) (difference of opinion as to which medical course of action should be pursued does not give rise to a deliberate indifference claim). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T52f,

MEMORANDUM

Pedro Alonso Gonzales, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 (e) and 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gonzales’ action because Gonzales failed to show in his second amended complaint and its attachments that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2004) (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir.2012) (difference of opinion as to which medical course of action should be pursued does not give rise to a deliberate indifference claim).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.