Case ID: f-appx_560/html/0675-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darren Eugene SHERMAN-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew L. CATE, Secretary of the California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation, official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-55337.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed March 4, 2014.
    Darren Eugene Sherman-Bey, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Darren Eugene Sherman-Bey 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 dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sherman-Bey’s action because Sherman-Bey failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants consciously disregarded a serious risk to his health when delayed renewal of an exemption from prison policy allowing him to continue carrying his prescription pain medicine on his person. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference by failing to take reasonable measures to abate a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate’s health); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that “[deliberate indifference is a high legal standard,” and that medical malpractice or gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).

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