Case Name: Alonzo James JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-28
Citations: 559 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 13-16205
Parties: Alonzo James JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Alonzo James JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16205.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed Feb. 28, 2014.
Alonzo James Joseph, lone, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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 Alonzo James Joseph appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Joseph's action because Joseph failed to al lege facts demonstrating that defendants were deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to his health by failing to recall soap before he suffered injuries from its use. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health; mere negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.