NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEP 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MICHAEL T. HAYES, No. 13-35887
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00011-EJL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, a Maryland corporation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, CANBY, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael T. Hayes, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging numerous violations of
his civil rights, including unconstitutional living conditions and deliberate
*
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).
indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th
Cir.1996) (summary judgment), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir.1998). We
affirm.
“The denial of a motion to amend a complaint is reviewed for abuse of
discretion.” Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir.
2014). Leave to mend is to be liberally granted, and “[f]ive factors are taken into
account to assess the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: bad faith, undue
delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the
plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Id. (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). The district court accepted two amended complaints and
granted Hayes two extensions of time to file his third amended complaint. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hayes’s third extension
request.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, et seq.,
requires prisoners to properly exhaust administrative remedies before filing a suit
in federal court, meaning that “a prisoner must complete the administrative review
process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including deadlines.”
2
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88 (2006). The district court properly dismissed
Hayes’s unconstitutional living conditions claim because he failed to properly
exhaust his administrative remedies.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hayes’s
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim. Hayes failed to
demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cooper’s “acts or
omissions [were] sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992) (internal
quotation marks, citation and emphasis omitted). It is undisputed that the medical
appointment with Cooper ended because Hayes stood up and stepped toward
Cooper rather than because Cooper purposefully acted or failed to respond to
Hayes’s medical needs.
The district court did not err in dismissing the rest of Hayes’s claims for
failure to allege sufficient facts, failure to properly serve defendants, or
untimeliness.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3