Abel Reyes v. Patricia Rouch ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ABEL P. REYES,                                  No. 22-15232
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01158-DAD-HBK
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    PATRICIA ROUCH, Nurse Practitioner at
    Corcoran State Prison; OLIVIA
    BORBOLLA, Registered Nurse at Corcoran
    State Prison; EDGAR CLARK, Medical
    Doctor at Corcoran State Prison; G.
    RODRIGUEZ, Registered Nurse at Corcoran
    State Prison,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 14, 2023**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Abel P. Reyes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    *
    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).
    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 a district
    court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 
    680 F.3d 1113
    ,
    1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Reyes’s action because Reyes failed to
    allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to
    Reyes’s pain, elevated blood pressure, and withdrawal symptoms. See Hebbe v.
    Pliler, 
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
    construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
    plausible claim for relief); Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1057-60 (9th Cir.
    2004) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and
    disregard a risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence or
    difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
    deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 
    296 F.3d 732
    , 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a
    prisoner alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show
    that the delay caused significant harm).
    We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    2                                     22-15232
    Reyes’s request for an order revoking defendants’ medical licenses and
    certifications, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                             22-15232