MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Rodnei Frazier appeals pro se from the district court’s *621 judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation against him for filing a federal action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Frazier’s Eighth Amendment claim because Frazier failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his alleged need for treatment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health[.]”); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (delay of medical treatment does not constitute deliberate indifference unless delay led to further injury); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court properly dismissed Frazier’s retaliation claim because Frazier failed to allege facts to show that defendants knew of or were motivated by Frazier’s federal action filed against individuals at another prison facility years earlier. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

We reject Frazier’s contentions concerning leave to amend to add new defendants.

AFFIRMED.