DUANE DIXON V. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND, No. 13-16852 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 18 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DUANE DIXON, No. 13-16852 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01225-LJO-DLB v. MEMORANDUM* DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2014** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Duane Dixon appeals pro se from the district court s judgment in 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 * 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). review do novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (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)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Dixon s action because Dixon failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his head injury. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (to demonstrate deliberate indifference, the prisoner must show a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner s pain or possible medical need and harm caused by the indifference ); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) ( [M]edical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment. ). AFFIRMED. 2 13-16852

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.