N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ATTHEW

A. DuB OIS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. WASHOE C OUNTY SHERIFF’ S OFFIC E ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16031 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00415-M M DVPC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda Du, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2014 * * B e fore : LEAVY, GOULD, a n d B ER Z ON, C irc uit Judge s . C a lifornia sta te prisone r M atthe w A. DuB ois a p pe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his serious m e dic a l ne e ds whilede ta ine d in a Ne va da ja il. W e have 

# FIL ED OCT 22 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im . Hamilton v. Brown , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th C ir. 2010) (dismissa l unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6)). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d DuB ois’ s c la i m a ga i nst de fe nda

nt Dr. Ha hn be c a use DuB ois fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t Dr. Ha hn a c te d with de libe rate indiffe re n c e in tre ating his foot injury . Se eToguc h i v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (de l ibe rat e indiffe re n c e is a high le ga l sta nda rd, a nd is m e t only

if the prison offic ia l knows of a nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssiverisk to theprisone r’ s he a lth; m e d ic a l m a lpra c tic e or ne g lige nc e is insuffic ie nt to e sta

blish a n Eighth Ame ndm e nt viola tion); se ealso Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th C ir. 2011) (e le m e nts for supe rvisory lia bility unde r § 1983); Simmons v . N

a v ajo C ounty , Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th C ir. 2010) (the Eighth Ame ndm e nt sta nda rd a p plie s to pre tria l de t a ine e s a lle g ing c rue l a nd unusua l punishme nt in viola tion of theFourte e nth Am e ndm e nt). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d DuB ois’ s c la i m a ga i nst de fe nda

nts W a shoe C ounty

She riff’ s Offic e and Prison He a l th Se rvic e s be c a use DuB ois fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he wa s ha

rm e d by a polic y or c ustom . Se e J ac k son v . Barne

s , 749 F.3d 755, 762-64 (9th C ir. 2014) (re quire m e nts for a lle ging 1 3 - 1 6 0 3 1 2m

unic ipa l lia

bility unde r § 1983); Tsao v . De s e rt Palac e

, Inc . , 698 F.3d 1128, 1138-39 (9th C ir. 2012) (re quire m e nts for m unic ipa l lia

b ility a pply to priva t e e ntitie s sue d unde r § 1983). To the e xte nt tha

t DuB ois c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r sta y ing disc ove ry , the c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion be c a

use DuB ois fa i le d to de sc ribe the d isc ove ry

he sought. S

e e Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth the

sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd de sc ribing trial c ourt’ s broa d disc re tion to de ny disc ove ry ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 0 3 1 3