NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
JOHNNIE LAMBERT, No. 11-16855
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00093-RCJ-
RAM
v.
DANTE F. VACCA; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Johnnie Lambert appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for
reconsideration because Lambert failed to show grounds warranting
reconsideration of the court’s decision dismissing Lambert’s complaint on the
basis that it implicated state tort law causes of action rather than Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See id. at 1263
(setting forth grounds for reconsideration); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (negligence is 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 “we may consider
facts contained in documents attached to the complaint” in determining whether
the complaint states a claim for relief).
Lambert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16855