Tony L. Horton v. Corizon Incorporated;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONY L. HORTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CORIZON INCORPORATED; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16162
D.C. No. 4:16-cv-00213-DCB-
PSOT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Tony L. Horton 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. Wilhelm v.
* 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
OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16162
Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Horton’s action because Horton failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be
construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); see also Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128,
1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (a private entity is liable under § 1983 only if a constitutional
violation was caused by an official policy, practice or custom); Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements for a deliberate
indifference claim).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --