FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY LOREN PERKINS, No. 13-17064
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01611-GSA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN MATTHEWS and W. PREWETT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 25, 2014***
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Anthony Loren Perkins appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Perkins 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).
Amendment violations in connection with a nine-day delay in receiving dental
surgery. 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).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Hamilton v. Brown, 630
F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Perkins’s action because Perkins failed
to allege facts showing that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk
of harm to his health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th
Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and is met only if the
prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health;
negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); see also
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are
to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient
to state a plausible claim for relief).
To the extent that Perkins alleges that defendant Matthews improperly
determined that the inmate appeal did not meet the criteria for an emergency
2 13-17064
appeal, he fails to state a claim because prisoners do not have a “constitutional
entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d
850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17064