Andre Revis v. J. Wang ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDRE L. REVIS, No. 15-15325
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00059-AWI-
DLB
v.
J. WANG; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Andre L. Revis, a California state prisoner, 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, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Revis’s action because Revis failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with
deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are
insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); see also Nat’l Ass’n for the
Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049
(9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, “we
may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-15325