Raymond Johnson v. Shankiri Reddy

Ninth Circuit

Raymond Johnson v. Shankiri Reddy

586 F. App'x 405

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 2014

Docket14-15088

StatusUnpublished

This text of 586 F. App'x 405 (Raymond Johnson v. Shankiri Reddy) 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

Raymond Johnson v. Shankiri Reddy, 586 F. App'x 405 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Raymond Leon Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the . district court’s judgment dismissing 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 review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson’s factual allegations and the attachments to the operative complaint show that Reddy did not act with deliberate indifference to Johnson’s skin condition or back pain. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058-60 (9th Cir.2004) (neither a mere difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, 228 F.3d at 1049 (in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”).

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 ***

Raymond Leon Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the . district court’s judgment dismissing 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 review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson’s factual allegations and the attachments to the operative complaint show that Reddy did not act with deliberate indifference to Johnson’s skin condition or back pain. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058-60 (9th Cir.2004) (neither a mere difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, 228 F.3d at 1049 (in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”).

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)

586 F. App'x 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-johnson-v-shankiri-reddy-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack