FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE L. REVIS, No. 15-15325

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00059-AWI-

DLB

v.

J. WANG; et al., MEMORANDUM*

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Andre L. Revis, 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, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,

1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Revis’s action because Revis failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Toguchi v.

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with

deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are

insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); see also Nat’l Ass’n for the

Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049

(9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, “we

may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-15325