LOPEZ v. BROWN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-23No. No. 20-15262

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lopez's civil rights action, finding that his deliberate indifference claim lacked factual sufficiency and his due process claim failed as a matter of law.

Adam Ray Lopez, a California prisoner, appealed the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lopez alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his ankle pain and that prison grievance procedures violated his due process rights. The appellate court reviewed the district court's dismissal de novo and found both claims legally deficient.

Regarding the deliberate indifference claim, Lopez failed to provide sufficient facts showing that prison officials knew of and consciously disregarded a serious risk to his health. The court clarified that disagreements over medical treatment or negligence do not constitute deliberate indifference. As to the due process claim, the court held that prisoners have no constitutional right to any particular grievance procedure, making this claim implausible as a matter of law.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether facts alleged support a claim of deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs
Whether inmates have a constitutional right to a specific prison grievance procedure
Whether medical disagreement or negligence constitutes deliberate indifference

Procedural posture

Lopez appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his § 1983 complaint, which the appellate court reviewed de novo for legal sufficiency.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Adam Ray Lopez appeals pro se from the district courts 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) (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 Lopezs 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 prisoners 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 Lopezs 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.