Joel Holley v. M. Scott

May 29, 2014

13-16651

Versions:

Case Information

*1 FILED MAY 29 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL ANTHONY HOLLEY, No. 13-16651

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01090-MJS v.

MEMORANDUM ^[*] M. SCOTT, Officer, CSR; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding ^[**] Submitted May 13, 2014 ^[***]

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Joel Anthony Holley, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate *2 indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Holley’s action because Holley failed to allege facts showing that defendants were deliberately indifferent to a risk of Holley contracting Valley Fever by housing him at Pleasant Valley State Prison. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and disregards” an excessive risk to inmate health).

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) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-16651

Notes

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

[**] Holley consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

[***] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).