-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADAM RAY LOPEZ, No. 20-15262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. § 1983action 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
Document Info
Docket Number: 20-15262
Filed Date: 2/23/2021
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 2/23/2021