Frederick Karl Jost v. JERRY BROWN, Attorney General;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jost 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK KARL JOST,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JERRY BROWN, Attorney General; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15207
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00507-GBC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gerald B. Cohn, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 21, 2012***
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Frederick Karl Jost, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15207 2
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
for failure to state a claim, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000),
and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Jost failed to allege
facts showing that defendants acted with deliberate indifference regarding the
denial of his request for soft soled shoes. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1058 (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 and safety).
Jost’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --