FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILLIP J. ROSENBLUM, No. 10-15155
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01176-PMP-
GWF
v.
MULE CREEK STATE PRISON; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Phillip J. Rosenblum, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing 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 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A for
*
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).
failure to state a claim. 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 the action because Rosenblum’s factual
allegations and the attachments to the operative complaint show that defendants
did not act with deliberate indifference to his medical problems. See Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with
deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to the prisoner’s health and safety, and negligence or a difference in medical
opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); Nat’l Ass’n for the
Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049
(9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “we may consider facts contained in documents
attached to the complaint” in determining whether the complaint states a claim for
relief).
Rosenblum’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15155