NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY LEE GAINES, No. 17-15142
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00168-LJO-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
S. LWIN, M.D. of the California
Department of Corrections, Central
California Womens’ Facility; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Mary Lee Gaines appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to her safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
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).
review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gaines’s deliberate indifference claim
because Gaines failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Berber knew
of and disregarded an excessive risk to Gaines’s safety. See Foster v. Runnels, 554
F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a prison official’s deliberate
indifference, an inmate must show that the official was aware of a risk to the
inmate’s health or safety and that the official deliberately disregarded the
risk . . . .”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Gaines’s state law claim because it properly
determined that Gaines’s federal claim was unfounded. See Trs. of the Constr.
Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint.,
Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 926 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]t [is] appropriate for the district court
to decline jurisdiction over . . . supplemental state claims [when] the federal claim
[has] proven to be unfounded.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 17-15142
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15142