Sherman M. Bell v. Godwin Ugwueze

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHERMAN M. BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GODWIN UGWUEZE; CHINYERE
NYENKE; CLARENCE CRYER;
MELISSA FRITZ; LAUARA MERRITT;
MARK MCCOY; LILIANNA LEPE;
STUART TAMALE; KAYLA ESPINOSA;
KAYLEE WICKERT; AGNES BASA;
JANUARY RACCA; LOVINAH
ABRAHAM,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16119
D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00998-JLT-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
* 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
AUG 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16119
California state prisoner Sherman M. Bell 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. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th
Cir. 2017) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,
1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bell’s action because Bell failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants demonstrated deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.
2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege
sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057,
1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference “is a high legal standard”
requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s
health); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]here is no
respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”).
Bell’s reliance on Medical Development International v. California
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 585 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2009), is
unavailing as it is not relevant to his claims.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16119
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --