Adam Ray Lopez v. BROWN, Doctor;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAM RAY LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BROWN, Doctor; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15262
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00343-DAD-
GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Adam Ray Lopez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)
* 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
FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15262
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,
447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s deliberate indifference claim
because Lopez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his ankle pain. 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); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he
or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical
malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652
F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory
liability).
The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s due process claim alleging
deficiencies in the grievance process because “inmates lack a separate
constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
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 --