Summary
finding that district court properly dismissed prisoner's complaint at screening
Summary of this case from Harris v. AtchleyOpinion
No. 18-16261
12-05-2018
EDWARD B. SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. M. KOKOL, Physician at SATF, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01561-LJO-BAM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Edward B. Spencer 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. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Spencer's action because Spencer failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant was deliberately indifferent to Spencer's health condition. See 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); Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit).
Spencer's request to take judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.