Case Information
*1 Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Patrick L. Richardson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate *2 indifference and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Richardson’s individual capacity claims because Richardson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant was deliberately indifference to his serious medical needs or took adverse action against him because of his protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Toguchi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health , and that a difference of medical opinion is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court properly dismissed Richardson’s official capacity claims as barred by sovereign immunity. See Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. , 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the State of California enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity with respect to § 1983 claims in federal court).
The district court properly dismissed as moot Richardson’s claims for injunctive relief. See Dilley v. Gunn , 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that a prisoner ’ s transfer to a different state prison moots claims for *3 injunctive relief absent certain exceptions).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).