William Brandstatt v. California Substance Abuse And , 585 F. App'x 518 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM HUBERT LOYD No. 13-17201
BRANDSTATT,
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00434-RRB
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE
AND TREATMENT FACILITY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 14, 2014***
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
William Hubert Loyd Brandstatt, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief United States District Judge for the District
of Alaska, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 and
1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Brandstatt’s action because Brandstatt
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference by failing to provide him with combination drug treatment for his
Hepatitis C. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004)
(deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and is met only if the prison
official “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”; to prevail on
a claim involving choices between alternative courses of treatment, an inmate must
show that the chosen course of treatment was both medically unacceptable and
chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the inmate’s health (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief); Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology,
228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e may consider facts contained in
2 13-17201
documents attached to the complaint.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17201
Brandstatt v. California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility, No. 13-17201
BERZON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
In my view, dismissal of Brandstatt’s claims against defendants Enenmoh,
Zamora, and Nyenke was premature at this early stage of the proceedings.
4 13-17201