
    Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15288
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    Filed September 22, 2016
    Brian Darnell Edwards, Pro Se.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Brian Darnell Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim 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 Edwards’s action because Edwards failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth requirements for a deliberate indifference claim and stating that negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     