Edward Thaves v. Moorehead

Ninth Circuit

Edward Thaves v. Moorehead

648 F. App'x 733

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2016

Docket14-16745

StatusUnpublished

This text of 648 F. App'x 733 (Edward Thaves v. Moorehead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward Thaves v. Moorehead, 648 F. App'x 733 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Thaves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs arising out of events that occurred while he was in federal custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 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 Thaves’s action because Thaves failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating his eye condition. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; negligence in treating a medical condition, without more, is insufficient); see also Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir.1991) (Bivens actions are identical to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens ”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Thaves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs arising out of events that occurred while he was in federal custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 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 Thaves’s action because Thaves failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating his eye condition. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; negligence in treating a medical condition, without more, is insufficient); see also Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir.1991) (Bivens actions are identical to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens ”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

648 F. App'x 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-thaves-v-moorehead-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack