
    Mary Lee GAINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. LWIN, M.D. of the California Department of Corrections, Central California Womens’ Facility; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-15142
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017
    Mary Lee Gaines, Chowchilla, CA, pro se.
    Before; SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Mary Lee Gaines appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her safety. 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 Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gaines’s deliberate indifference claim because Gaines failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Berber knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Gaines’s safety. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a prison official’s deliberate indifference, an inmate must show that the official was aware of a risk to the inmate’s health or safety and that the official deliberately disregarded the risk .... ”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gaines’s state law claim because it properly determined that Gaines’s federal claim was unfounded. See Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint, Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 926 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]t [is] appropriate for the district court to decline jurisdiction over ... supplemental state claims [when] the federal claim [has] proven to be unfounded.”).

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).

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