DocketNumber: 16-15288
Judges: Hawkins, Smith, Hurwitz
Filed Date: 9/22/2016
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN DARNELL EDWARDS, No. 16-15288 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01503-EPG v. MEMORANDUM* KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted September 13, 2016*** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Brian Darnell Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging retaliation and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Edwards consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See28 U.S.C. § 636
(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1291
. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes,213 F.3d 443
, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington,152 F.3d 1193
, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s action because Edwards failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler,627 F.3d 338
, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Watison v. Carter,668 F.3d 1108
, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context); Toguchi v. Chung,391 F.3d 1051
, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth requirements for a deliberate indifference claim and stating that negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation). AFFIRMED. 2 16-15288