Michael Dobson v. Charles Ryan ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL DOBSON, No. 20-15903
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05874-JAT-ESW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADC
Prisons at Department of Corrections; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DAVID SHINN, Director; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
California state prisoner Michael Dobson 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 the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dobson’s action for failure to state a
claim because Dobson failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Dobson’s deep vein thrombosis treatment. See Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir.
2004) (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and
disregard a risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence or
difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15903