FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, No. 12-57198
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01339-CJC-PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. WU; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jose Carlos Rodriguez 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. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s deliberate indifference
claim because Rodriguez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants
knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Rodriguez’s health by determining
that Rodriguez did not need soft shoes and arch supports for his feet. See Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is
a high legal standard, met only if the defendant knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical
opinion are insufficient); see also Corales v. Bennet, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir.
2009) (no supervisor liability if no underlying constitutional violation); Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate
constitutional entitlement to a specific grievance procedure.”).
The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act because the
claims were based on inadequate treatment. See Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.,
609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The ADA prohibits discrimination because
of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”); see also Coons v. Sec’y of
U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2004) (same standards apply to
the ADA and Rehabilitation Act).
2 12-57198
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rodriguez’s
request for leave to file a third amended complaint after providing Rodriguez with
two opportunities to amend and concluding that further amendment would be
futile. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129-30
(9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend
may be denied if amendment would be futile).
We do not consider issues raised by Rodriguez in his brief which are not
supported by argument. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1992).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-57198