Arthur Torlucci v. VANCE NORUM, Ph.D.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARTHUR TORLUCCI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VANCE NORUM, Ph.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17738
D.C. No. 4:08-cv-04124-SBA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Torlucci, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his medical needs and safety when defendants assigned him to a
FILED
FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-17738 2
double cell and discontinued his anxiety medication. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196,
1200 (9th Cir. 1998), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Torlucci’s action because Torlucci
failed to allege facts showing that defendants acted with conscious disregard to an
excessive risk to his heath or safety. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057
(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); see
also Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a difference of opinion
between the physician and the prisoner concerning the appropriate course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs).
Moreover, the district court properly dismissed Torlucci’s claims against
defendants Evelsizor, Hendrick, Rushen, and Sid because Torlucci failed to set
forth facts linking defendants to the constitutional violations at issue. See Taylor v.
List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Liability under [§] 1983 arises only
upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant. A supervisor is only
liable for the constitutional violations of . . . subordinates if the supervisor
participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act
to prevent them” (citations omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-17738 3
We do not consider claims, including Torlucci’s Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act claim, raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Torlucci’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --