Court Opinion

ID: 9964689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 17:01:23.786255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.401100
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO MERINO,                               No. 22-16746

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00826-KJM-DMC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
VIVIAN VUONG,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Francisco Merino 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 a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Mangiaracina

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Merino’s action because Merino failed

to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant was deliberately indifferent in

treating Merino’s eye injury. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.

2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege

sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-

60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard” that requires a

defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health;

medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of opinion concerning the course of

treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

      We treat Merino’s filing at Docket Entry No. 21 as a renewed motion for

appointment of pro bono counsel and deny the motion.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     22-16746