FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM L. HUNTER, No. 12-16664
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00758-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
A. GOMEZ, licensed vocational nurse;
A. HARRINGTON; S. LOPEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
**
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013 ***
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Hunter consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a)(2).
California state prisoner William L. Hunter appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in 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 a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A
and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F. 3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hunter’s claims against defendant
Gomez because Hunter failed to allege any facts in his operative amended
complaint demonstrating that Gomez knew of and consciously disregarded
Hunter’s serious medical needs when she injected him with the wrong kind and
amount of insulin. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical
malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation
under the Eighth Amendment.”). A complaint must contain enough facts to “state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
2 12-16664
Id. While courts must take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, they do not
have to accept “bare assertions.” Id. at 681.
The district court properly dismissed Hunter’s claims against the supervisor
defendants because Hunter failed to allege facts demonstrating their personal
involvement in the alleged violations or a causal connection between their conduct
and the alleged violations. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“A defendant may be held liable as a supervisor under § 1983 ‘if there exists
either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a
sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the
constitutional violation.’”) (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16664