Grzeslo v. Phillips

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES GRZESLO, No. 25-1815 D.C. No. 1:24-cv-00615-JLT-SAB Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* BRYAN D. PHILLIPS; IDALBERTO ZALDIVAR-GALVES; N. SCAIFE; L. HASHIMI; ARMENTA TIGGS-BROWN, P.A.; N. NDU; B HILL; H. SMITH; L. MORENO; J. WELCH, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner James Grzeslo appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state * 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). law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Grzeslo’s action because Grzeslo failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard 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); Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 662 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Section 1983 requires [the plaintiff] to demonstrate a violation of federal law, not state law.”); Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc., 236 P.3d, 346, 348-49 (Cal. 2010) (explaining that “violation of a state statute does not necessarily give rise to a private cause of action” and explaining requirements for a private cause of action). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 25-1815 All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 25-1815