Tracye Bernard WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. HARRINGTON; et al., DefendantsAppellees, 549 F. App'x 679

MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Tracye Bernard Washington appeals 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 the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Washington’s action because Washington failed to allege facts in his operative amended complaint showing that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Washington’s health. See To-guchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; neither a prisoner’s difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v.

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.2011) (setting forth requirements for supervisory liability). Washington’s contention that the district court failed to construe his pro se complaint liberally is unsupported by the record. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). Washington’s request for judicial notice, filed on May 15, 2013, is denied. AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.