David Wilson v. L. Zafra , 376 F. App'x 784 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              APR 20 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID W. WILSON,                                  No. 08-17632
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:06-cv-1577-FCD-KJM
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    L. M. ZAFRA; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 5, 2010 **
    Before:        RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    David W. Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
    and state law violations related to prison officials’ alleged failure to provide mental
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    health care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
    dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Nelson v. Heiss, 
    271 F.3d 891
    , 893 (9th
    Cir. 2001); Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s deliberate indifference to
    medical needs claim because he did not allege that he suffered a sufficiently
    serious harm when defendant Nurse Zafra ignored his request to see a psychiatrist
    on the weekend. See Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    (9th Cir. 2004). The
    district court also properly dismissed Wilson’s remaining claims because they are
    vague and conclusory and because Wilson failed to allege how any official
    deprived him of his constitutional or other protected rights by affirmative conduct
    or through failure to act, as required under Section 1983. See Leer v. Murphy, 
    844 F.2d 628
    , 633 (9th 1988). Wilson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    We deny as moot appellee Zafra’s request for judicial notice.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     08-17632