Court Opinion

ID: 4699626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-06-29 20:01:06.487772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:15.645402
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 29 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASON PAGE,                                     No. 20-16978

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01359-DAD-JDP

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
S. GATES, Chief Health Case Appeals
Branch; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

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

                             Submitted June 21, 2021**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Jason Page 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 for failure to state a claim.

      *
             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).
Byrd v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017).

We affirm.

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

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Cholla Ready Mix,

Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (a party’s conclusory allegations,

unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences need not be accepted as

true); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“[T]o state a cognizable

claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”).

      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).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    20-16978