Court Opinion

ID: 6333407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-20 20:00:28.42779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:28.548615
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 20 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN LEON JOYCE,                              No. 21-16032

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:20-cv-01324-DAD-SAB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
STEWART SHERMAN; WINFRED M.
KOKOR; POWELL,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before:      McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Steven Leon Joyce 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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.

      *
             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).
2012) (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)). We affirm.

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

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim of deliberate indifference in

diagnosing and treating his Valley Fever. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-

42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff

must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he

or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical

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

treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d

732, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2002) (to establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising

from delay in providing care, a plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                       21-16032