Robert Guevara v. Corizon Health ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 16 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ROBERT P. GUEVARA,                              No.    19-16373
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03244-GMS-CDB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CORIZON HEALTH, INC., Contract
    Medical Provider at A.D.O.C; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 7, 2020**
    Before:      TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Arizona state prisoner Robert P. Guevara 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.
    *
    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).
    § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Guevara’s action because Guevara
    failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants disregarded an excessive
    risk to Guevara’s serious medical needs. 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
    , 1056-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately
    indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate
    health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the
    course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Roberts v.
    Spalding, 
    783 F.2d 867
    , 870 (9th Cir. 1986) (a prisoner has no constitutional right
    to outside medical care to supplement the medical care provided by the prison).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     19-16373