Tuvalu Fausia v. Mathew Cates

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Tuvalu Tutuila Fausia appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that defendants failed properly to treat his finger injury and denied him personal possession of a typewriter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fausia’s claim alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs because Fausia failed to allege facts showing that defendants disregarded an excessive risk to Fausia’s health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; neither a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference).

The district court properly dismissed Fausia’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims because…