NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TONY L. HORTON, No. 17-16162 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:16-cv-00213-DCB- PSOT v. CORIZON INCORPORATED; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Tony L. Horton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Horton’s action because Horton 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 construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (a private entity is liable under § 1983 only if a constitutional violation was caused by an official policy, practice or custom); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements for a deliberate indifference claim).

AFFIRMED.

2 17-16162