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:T511,MEMORANDUM 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. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (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. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T53e,

MEMORANDUM

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. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (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.

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