MEMORANDUM **

Edward Thaves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs arising out of events that occurred while he was in federal custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (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 Thaves’s action because Thaves failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant was deliberately indifferent in treating his eye condition. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health; negligence in treating a medical condition, without more, is insufficient); see also Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991) (Bivens actions are identical to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens ”).

AFFIRMED.