Case Name: Duane DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-18
Citations: 579 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 13-16852
Parties: Duane DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
Duane DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16852.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2014.
Filed June 18, 2014.
Duane Dixon, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, 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 Duane Dixon appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review do novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dixon's action because Dixon failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defen dants were deliberately indifferent to his head injury. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (to demonstrate deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show "a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need" and "harm caused by the indifference"); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) ("Medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent, except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.