Duane Dixon v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DUANE DIXON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16852
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01225-LJO-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Duane Dixon appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in 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
FILED
JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

review do novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.
1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dixon’s action because Dixon failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
head injury. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (to
demonstrate deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show “a purposeful act or
failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need” and “harm caused
by the indifference”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“[M]edical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional
deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16852

-- 2 of 2 --