Case Name: David W. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.M. ZAFRA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-20
Citations: 376 F. App'x 784
Docket Number: No. 08-17632
Parties: David W. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.M. ZAFRA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 784–785

Head Matter:
David W. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.M. ZAFRA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-17632.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 20, 2010.
David W. Wilson, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Jaime Ganson, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David W. Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and state law violations related to prison officials' alleged failure to provide mental health care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wilson's deliberate indifference to medical needs claim because he did not allege that he suffered a sufficiently serious harm when defendant Nurse Zafra ignored his request to see a psychiatrist on the weekend. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.2004). The district court also properly dismissed Wilson's remaining claims because they are vague and conclu-sory and because Wilson failed to allege how any official deprived him of his constitutional or other protected rights by affirmative conduct or through failure to act, as required under Section 1983. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir.1988). Wilson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive. We deny as moot appellee Za-fra's request for judicial notice.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.