FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONDALEE MORRIS, No. 12-55735
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01305-JAH-NLS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
J. SANDOVAL, RN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Condalee Morris appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068,
1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Morris’s action because Morris failed
to allege facts demonstrating that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive
risk to his health or failed to provide him with prompt medical treatment. See Jett
v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (to establish deliberate indifference
based on a delay in treatment, a prisoner must show that the delay resulted in
further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain);
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to an inmate’s health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without leave to
amend because the deficiencies in Morris’s complaint could not be cured by
amendment. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be
given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).
Morris’s contention that the district court should have allowed discovery is
unpersuasive.
2 12-55735
Defendants’ request to strike portions of Morris’s opening brief, set forth in
their answering brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-55735