The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-16205•Alonzo James Joseph v. California Prison Industry Authority;
13-16205Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 28, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALONZO JAMES JOSEPH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA PRISON INDUSTRY
AUTHORITY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16205
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00122-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 18, 2014***
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alonzo James Joseph appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
FILED
FEB 28 2014
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.
** Joseph consented to proceed before a magistrate. 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 2 --
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Joseph’s action because Joseph failed
to allege facts demonstrating that defendants were deliberately indifferent to an
excessive risk to his health by failing to recall soap before he suffered injuries from
its use. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057, 1060 (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; mere negligence is insufficient to establish
deliberate indifference); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.
2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
AFFIRMED.
13-16205 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.