FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 3 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEI FRAZIER, No. 13-17471
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01656-LJO-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHNATHAN AKANO; 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 January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rodnei Frazier 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 and retaliation against him for filing a
federal action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
*
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) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Frazier’s Eighth Amendment claim
because Frazier failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his alleged need for treatment. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the
Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement
unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health[.]”);
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (delay of medical treatment
does not constitute deliberate indifference unless delay led to further injury); 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).
The district court properly dismissed Frazier’s retaliation claim because
Frazier failed to allege facts to show that defendants knew of or were motivated by
Frazier’s federal action filed against individuals at another prison facility years
earlier. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements
of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
2 13-17471
We reject Frazier’s contentions concerning leave to amend to add new
defendants.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17471