David Velasquez v. A. Barrios

MEMORANDUM

Prisoner David Velasquez appeals from the district court’s final judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I

The district court did not err in dismissing Velasquez’s Eighth Amendment allegations because he cannot demonstrate that appellees acted with deliberate indifference in delaying his hernia surgery. The Eighth Amendment requires the government to provide a certain level of medical care to its prisoners. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Not every breach of this duty, however, amounts to a constitutional violation. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir.1988). Instead, the relevant inquiry when an inmate contends that prison officials neglected his medical needs is whether these officials demonstrated “deliberate indifference.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104 , 97 S.Ct. 285 . To state a claim under the deliberate indifference standard, an inmate must allege more than mere negligence, but rather plead facts sufficient to support the conclusion that prison officials were aware of a substantial risk to the prisoner’s health,…