Chet Pruitt v. Manjula Bobbala

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838

F.3d 958, 962–63 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Turner v. City & County of San

Francisco, 788 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2015)). To state a claim under § 1983, a

plaintiff must allege (1) the “violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws

of the United States” and (2) that “the alleged deprivation was committed by a person

acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). And to

establish an Eighth Amendment violation “based on prison medical treatment,” the

3 plaintiff must show two elements: (1) a serious medical need4 and (2) deliberate

indifference to such need. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

First, Pruitt fails to plausibly allege that the Fund’s denial of insurance

benefits is the kind of “sufficiently serious” deprivation that constitutes an Eighth

Amendment violation. See Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062,

1074 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining deprivation is sufficiently serious when it causes

“the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” (quoting Foster v.

Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812…