Jordan Rosenberg v. Harley Lappin
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Former federal prisoner Jordan Rosenberg appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act (the “FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Westbay Steel, Inc. v. United States, 970 F.2d 648, 649 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rosenberg’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs because Rosenberg failed to allege facts in his complaint showing that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 , 97 S.Ct. 285 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (“Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.”).
The district court properly dismissed Rosenberg’s claims against defendant Lap-pin because vicarious liability is an improper basis for a Bivens action. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).