LONNIE WILLIAMS V. KIDILEY, No. 13-57123 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 17 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LONNIE C. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-57123 D.C. No. 5:12-cv-02272-AG-RNB v. MEMORANDUM* KIDILEY; MENDORO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2014** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Lonnie C. Williams, a California 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. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) * 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). (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); 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 Williams’s action because the complaint and the exhibits attached thereto show that defendants did not act with deliberate indifference to Williams’s medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of medical opinion, is not sufficient). We do not consider Williams’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court acted outside its jurisdiction in considering Williams’s allegations against Dr. Kidiley. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999). AFFIRMED. 2 13-57123

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.