Hancock v. Friedman

MEMORANDUM ^**

Joseph Gideon Hancock, 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 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 for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Warden Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hancock’s deliberate indifference claims because his allegations of inadequate care state, at most, a claim of negligence. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.1990) (‘While poor medical treatment will at a certain point rise to the level of constitutional violation, mere malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not suffice.”).

Hancock’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.