Maurice Hunt v. Matevousian

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICE HUNT, No. 17-15504
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01457-DAD-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Maurice Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hunt’s action because Hunt failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
back and hip injury. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057, 1060 (9th Cir.
2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; mere negligence is insufficient
to establish deliberate indifference); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
847 (1994) (Eighth Amendment claim for denial of humane conditions of
confinement requires showing that prison official “knows that inmates face a
substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take
reasonable measures to abate it.”).
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 17-15504