NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD E. SHREVES, No. 15-35441
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:14-cv-00048-DLC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SCOTT PIRANIAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Richard E. Shreves, a Montana 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. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(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)(B)(ii)). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shreves’s action because Shreves
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for 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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shreves’s motion
for reconsideration because Shreves failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
Shreves’s challenge to the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining
2 15-35441
order or preliminary injunction is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan,
954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided,
the reversal of a denial of a preliminary injunction would have no practical
consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).
We reject as meritless Shreves’s contentions that the district court erred by
failing to address his March 3, 2015 filing, or that the district court ignored new
evidence submitted with his objections.
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-35441