MEMORANDUM ***

Jerald Tucker, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in the treatment of his back injury. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). 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 the action because Tucker failed to allege facts suggesting that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of harm to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. Even a showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. See Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.