Davis v. Alameida

321 F. App'x 632

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Reginald J. Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Davis sought to bring a claim that had been dismissed in a prior action and failed to state a claim for relief. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995). (“There is no abuse of discretion where a district court dismisses under § 1915[ (e) ] a complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that a difference in opinion over proper medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.