Gregory Tommie Jones v. Felix Igbinosa; James Yates

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY TOMMIE JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FELIX IGBINOSA; JAMES YATES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17124
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00163-LJO-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gregory Tommie Jones appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
JAN 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17124 2
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A or 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447
(9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jones’s action because Jones failed to
allege any facts in his amended complaint sufficient to show that either defendant
knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (to state a claim for deliberate indifference,
“the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn
that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”);
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Deliberate indifference is
a high legal standard.”).
Jones’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Jones’s motions for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --