Case Name: Joel Anthony HOLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. SCOTT, Officer, CSR; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 576 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 13-16651
Parties: Joel Anthony HOLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. SCOTT, Officer, CSR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 670–670

Head Matter:
Joel Anthony HOLLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. SCOTT, Officer, CSR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16651.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 29, 2014.
Joel Anthony Holley, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, 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
Joel Anthony Holley, 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. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (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 Holley's action because Holley failed to allege facts showing that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk of Holley contracting Valley Fever by housing him at Pleasant Valley State Prison. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she "knows of and disregards" an excessive risk to inmate health).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.