United States v. 2020-01-13 | 19-16401 | KEVIN ALLEN V. LOPEZ | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LOPEZ, Dr.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16401

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00154-DAD-
BAM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Kevin Allen 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.

*
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).
FILED

JAN 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16401
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Allen’s action because Allen failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible deliberate indifference claim. 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) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice,
negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not
amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motion to
appoint counsel because Allen did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See
Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of
review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented
to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.