Case Name: Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-22
Citations: 669 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 16-15288
Parties: Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15288
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 13, 2016
Filed September 22, 2016
Brian Darnell Edwards, Pro Se.
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
California state prisoner Brian Darnell Edwards appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,