Court Opinion

ID: 9557979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:19.746033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:59.663474
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHERMAN M. BELL,                                No. 22-16119

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00998-JLT-EPG

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
GODWIN UGWUEZE; CHINYERE
NYENKE; CLARENCE CRYER;
MELISSA FRITZ; LAUARA MERRITT;
MARK MCCOY; LILIANNA LEPE;
STUART TAMALE; KAYLA ESPINOSA;
KAYLEE WICKERT; AGNES BASA;
JANUARY RACCA; LOVINAH
ABRAHAM,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of California
                   Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
      California state prisoner Sherman M. Bell 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. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th

Cir. 2017) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,

1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Bell’s action because Bell failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. 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,

1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference “is a high legal standard”

requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s

health); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]here is no

respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”).

      Bell’s reliance on Medical Development International v. California

Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 585 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2009), is

unavailing as it is not relevant to his claims.

                                            2                                   22-16119
      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                                  22-16119