Oliver Walker v. City of Los Angeles Los Angeles City Counsel Dr. King, Parker Center Jail

21 F.3d 1119 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Oliver WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Los Angeles City Counsel; Dr. King, Parker Center Jail, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-55650. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 20, 1994. * Decided April 22, 1994. Before: POOLE, BEEZER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Oliver Walker, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Walker contends that the defendants deprived him of his constitutional right to adequate medical treatment following his arrest for driving under the influence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review de novo, Oscar v. University Students Cooperative Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783, 785 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 655 (1992), and affirm. 3 To state a claim under the Eighth Amendment, the plaintiff must allege acts or ommissions…