Daniel Dixon v. J. O'Connor

MEMORANDUM

Daniel Steve Dixon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation for filing prison grievances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Dixon’s retaliation claims because Dixon failed to allege that defendants’ actions did not advance legitimate correctional purposes. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807-09 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining that the timing of adverse actions alone is not sufficient to support the inference of a retaliatory motive and that a prisoner must show that there were no legitimate correctional purposes for conduct alleged to be retaliatory).

The district court properly dismissed Dixon’s claims based on deliberate indifference to his medical needs because Dixon failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that defendants’ knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See Toguchi v.…