Ricky Newton v. Ken Clark

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 1 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICKY LYNN NEWTON, No. 10-15972
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00133-AWI-
DLB
v.
KEN CLARK; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Ricky Lynn Newton, 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 dental needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly dismissed the deliberate indifference claim
relating to injuries inflicted by an allegedly defective piece of dental equipment
because Newton failed to allege that defendants’ actions constituted anything other
than negligence, malpractice, or an accident. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
105 (1976) (“An accident, although it may produce added anguish, is not on that
basis alone to be characterized as wanton infliction of unnecessary pain.”); Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004) (even a “showing of medical
malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation
under the Eighth Amendment”).
The district court properly dismissed the deliberate indifference claim
arising from a delay in dental treatment because Newton did not allege that he was
harmed by the delay, Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404,
407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), or that any of the named defendants were
responsible for the delay, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (person
can be liable for deliberate indifference only if he “knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health and safety”); Ortez v. Wash. Cnty., State of Or., 88
F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir. 1996) (dismissal of claims proper because the plaintiff
failed to allege “specific facts linking each defendant to a § 1983 violation”).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15972