Adam Lopez v. Brown ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ADAM RAY LOPEZ,                                 No. 20-15262
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00343-DAD-
    GSA
    v.
    BROWN, Doctor; et al.,                          MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 17, 2021**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Adam Ray Lopez appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging deliberate
    indifference and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 
    668 F.3d 1108
    , 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)
    *
    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).
    (dismissal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    ,
    447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s deliberate indifference claim
    because Lopez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were
    deliberately indifferent to his ankle pain. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-
    42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff
    must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he
    or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical
    malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of
    treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 
    652 F.3d 1202
    , 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory
    liability).
    The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s due process claim alleging
    deficiencies in the grievance process because “inmates lack a separate
    constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v.
    Galaza, 
    334 F.3d 850
    , 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
    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).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    20-15262