¶2 California state prisoner Darrell Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s sua sponte 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. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
¶3 The district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte because Williams “had a full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the matter” and Williams failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his diabetes. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 971-72 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2010)(en banc); see also Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (if the harm is an isolated exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it “ ‘ordinarily militates against a finding of deliberate indifference’ ” (citation omitted)); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057, 1060 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice or negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference).
¶4 AFFIRMED.