FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARREN EUGENE SHERMAN-BEY, No. 13-55337
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09281-RGK-RZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW L. CATE, Secretary of the
California Department of Correction &
Rehabilitation, official capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Darren Eugene Sherman-Bey 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
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren
v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sherman-Bey’s action because
Sherman-Bey failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants consciously
disregarded a serious risk to his health when delayed renewal of an exemption
from prison policy allowing him to continue carrying his prescription pain
medicine on his person. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847 (1994) (a
prison official acts with deliberate indifference by failing to take reasonable
measures to abate a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate’s health); Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that “[d]eliberate
indifference is a high legal standard,” and that medical malpractice or gross
negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-16805