Court Opinion

ID: 4095117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-02 22:01:13.295516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:45.088095
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             NOV 02 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE L. REVIS,                                  No. 15-15325

               Plaintiff-Appellant,              D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00059-AWI-
                                                 DLB
 v.

J. WANG; et al.,                                 MEMORANDUM*

               Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before:        LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      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.

          *
             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).
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.

                                           2                                       15-15325