Jason Page v. S. GATES, Chief Health Case Appeals Branch;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASON PAGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
S. GATES, Chief Health Case Appeals
Branch; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16978
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01359-DAD-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jason Page 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 a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim.
* 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
JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16978
Byrd v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir. 2017).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Page’s action because Page failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Cholla Ready Mix,
Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (a party’s conclusory allegations,
unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences need not be accepted as
true); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“[T]o state a cognizable
claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --