Relaun Deadmon v. Jeffrey Wang , 659 F. App'x 451 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RELAUN VAU HARE DEADMON, No. 15-15704
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00316-LJO-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFREY WANG; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Relaun Vau Hare Deadmon, a California state prisoner, 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 and
*
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).
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Deadmon’s action because Deadmon
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with
deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are
insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement
of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000)
(in determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider
facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Deadmon leave to
file a second amended complaint after providing him with an opportunity to
amend. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041
(9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend
should be given unless amendment would be futile); see also Chodos v. West
Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court’s discretion to
deny leave to amend is particularly broad when it has afforded plaintiff one or
more opportunities to amend). Contrary to Deadmon’s contention, the district
2 15-15704
court provided sufficient notice of the complaint’s deficiencies.
Even if the district court erred in finding that Deadmon’s objections were
late, the objections would not change the result in this case.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15704