MEMORANDUM **
Former Washington state prisoner William James Mathew Wallace II appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and disability discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district courts ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Wallace failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs resulting from his pre-existing injury to his foot. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmates health); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must show deliberate indifference in order to demonstrate intentional discrimination under the ADA).
AFFIRMED.