Lonnie C. Williams v. Kidiley; Mendoro

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LONNIE C. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KIDILEY; MENDORO,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-57123
D.C. No. 5:12-cv-02272-AG-RNB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Lonnie C. Williams, a California state prisoner, 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. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010)
FILED
DEC 17 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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

(dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); 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 Williams’s action because the
complaint and the exhibits attached thereto show that defendants did not act with
deliberate indifference to Williams’s medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal
standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of medical opinion, is
not sufficient).
We do not consider Williams’s contention, raised for the first time on
appeal, that the district court acted outside its jurisdiction in considering
Williams’s allegations against Dr. Kidiley. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045,
1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
13-57123 2

-- 2 of 2 --