FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAMEON HAM, No. 09-16820
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01982-LJO-SMS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KEN CLARK, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Dameon Ham, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his
Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any
ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claim against Warden Clark
because Ham failed to allege facts indicating Clark’s personal involvement in the
treatment of Ham’s sinus, hypertension, and pain medication problems. See Taylor
v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
The claims against the remaining defendants were properly dismissed
because Ham failed to allege facts showing that these defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to his medical problems. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that a prison official acts with deliberate
indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk of serious
harm to an inmate).
We do not consider the retaliation claim raised on appeal because it was not
adequately raised in the district court. See Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc., 266 F.3d
1104, 1111 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001).
Ham’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-16820