22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T50a,MEMORANDUM Lonnie C. Williams, 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. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); 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 Williams’s action because the complaint and the exhibits attached thereto show that defendants did not act with deliberate indifference to Williams’s medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of medical opinion, is not sufficient). We do not consider Williams’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court acted outside its jurisdiction in considering Williams’s allegations against Dr. Kidiley. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T53c,

MEMORANDUM

Lonnie C. Williams, 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. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); 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 Williams’s action because the complaint and the exhibits attached thereto show that defendants did not act with deliberate indifference to Williams’s medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of medical opinion, is not sufficient).

We do not consider Williams’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court acted outside its jurisdiction in considering Williams’s allegations against Dr. Kidiley. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

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