                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                                                                          MAR 6 2020
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY DEANORE WILKINS,                        No.    19-55595

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02048-VAP-E

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
BEN GRIFFIN, Dr.,

                Defendant-Appellee,

and

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before:      MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.




      *
             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).
      California state prisoner Timothy Deanore Wilkins 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. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d

443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Wilkins’s action because Wilkins

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Griffin knowingly

disregarded an excessive risk to Wilkins’s back condition. See Hebbe v. Pliler,

627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed

liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible

claim for relief); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a

prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice,

negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not

amount to deliberate indifference).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.




                                            2                                     19-55595
