Case Name: Jose PINEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. ENENMOH; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-26
Citations: 479 F. App'x 100
Docket Number: No. 11-16124
Parties: Jose PINEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. ENENMOH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 479
Pages: 100–101

Head Matter:
Jose PINEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A. ENENMOH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-16124.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2012.
Filed July 26, 2012.
Jose Pineda, Norco, CA, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, 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 Jose Pineda appeals pro se from the district court's judg ment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with injuries he sustained during a fall. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pineda's claims because Pineda failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.2004) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to a prisoner's health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Ortez v. Washington Cnty., Or., 88 F.3d 804, 809 (9th Cir.1996) (dismissal of claims was proper where plaintiff failed to allege that "defendants knew of or participated in activities connected to the alleged § 1983 violations"); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (a supervisor can be liable for constitutional violations of subordinates only if the supervisor knew of and failed to act to prevent the violations).
We do not consider issues not explicitly and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per cu-riam).
Pineda'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.