659 F. App'x 451
9th Cir.
2016

Andre L. REVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. WANG; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-15325

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

November 02, 2016

451

Guatemalan government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Andre L. Revis, Pro Se

Monica N. Anderson, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

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

MEMORANDUM **

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. 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.

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

Notes

*
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.