Robert Paul v. Kathleen Allison
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Robert Paul, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to prevent and adequately treat his shoulder injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Paul’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Onyeje, Mora, and Naverette because Paul failed to allege facts showing that these defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Paul’s health or safety. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety; neither a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly dismissed Paul’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-train claim against defendant Allison…