Case Name: Andre L. REVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. WANG; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-02
Citations: 659 F. App'x 451
Docket Number: No. 15-15325
Parties: Andre L. REVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. WANG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 659
Pages: 451–451

Head Matter:
Andre L. REVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. WANG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15325
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 25, 2016
Filed November 02, 2016
Andre L. Revis, Pro Se
Monica N. Anderson, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, 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
Andre L. Revis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing 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 de 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 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Revis's action because Revis failed to allege facts sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); see also Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, "we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.