Timothy Hanna v. RON DAVIS, Warden at Valley State Prison;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY HANNA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden at Valley State
Prison; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-16506
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01339-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 24, 2016***
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Timothy Hanna, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
FILED
MAR 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Hanna consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
* ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

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. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hanna’s deliberate indifference claim
against defendant Lawrence because Hanna failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that Lawrence was deliberately indifferent to his mental health issues. See Hebbe
v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th
Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice or
negligence does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hanna leave to
amend after already providing Hanna with an opportunity to amend and concluding
that further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
15-16506 2

-- 2 of 3 --

and noting that district court may dismiss without leave to amend when
amendment would be futile).
The district court properly concluded that Hanna’s requests for injunctive
relief were moot because Hanna was transferred to another prison after bringing
this action. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth
standard of review); Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[W]hen a
prisoner is moved from a prison, his action will usually become moot as to
conditions at that particular facility.”).
AFFIRMED.
15-16506 3

-- 3 of 3 --