FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 18 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      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, 

, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 

, 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, 

, 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, 

, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004)

(“[M]edical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional

deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”).

      AFFIRMED.




                                           2                                    13-16852