Robert Martinez v. K. Toor ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT JOHN MARTINEZ, No. 18-15830
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00319-LJO-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
K. TOOR; 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 November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert John Martinez 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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2012) (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)(B)(ii)). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth elements for a
deliberate indifference claim); see also 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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
Martinez’s deliberate indifference claims because amendment would be futile. See
Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that a district court “acts within its discretion to
deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”). Given that no federal
claims remained in the case, the district court did not err by denying leave to add
state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction”).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-15830