NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD EVERETT LEE GURULE, No. 13-36051
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:13-cv-01569-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN HANLIN, Sheriff; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Richard Everett Lee Gurule appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630
*
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).
F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gurule’s action because Gurule failed
to allege facts demonstrating that defendants were deliberately indifferent in
diagnosing and treating his rheumatoid arthritis while he was housed at the
Douglas County Jail. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th
Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice,
negligence, a difference of medical opinion, or a prisoner’s difference of opinion
with the physician regarding the course of treatment is not sufficient); see also
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa,
591 F.3d 1232, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (the deliberate indifference standard
applies to pretrial detainees because pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment
rights are comparable to prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-36051