Case Name: Dameon HAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-27
Citations: 393 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 09-16820
Parties: Dameon HAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
Dameon HAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16820.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
Filed Aug. 27, 2010.
Dameon Ham, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, 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
Dameon Ham, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claim against Warden Clark because Ham failed to allege facts indicating Clark's personal involvement in the treatment of Ham's sinus, hypertension, and pain medication problems. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989).
The claims against the l'emaining defendants were properly dismissed because Ham failed to allege facts showing that these defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical problems. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate).
We do not consider the retaliation claim raised on appeal because it was not adequately raised in the district court. See Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d 1104, 1111 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001).
Ham's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.