NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW J.J. WOLF, No. 14-36041
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00152-CWD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBIN SANDY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 26, 2016***
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Andrew J.J. Wolf, an Idaho 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.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Wolf consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wolf’s action because Wolf failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Tsao v. Desert
Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (a private entity is liable under
§ 1983 only if a constitutional violation was caused by an official policy or
custom); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is
liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional
deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s
wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); 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 Wolf leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. 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 amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wolf’s motion to
2 14-36041
alter, amend, vacate or reconsider the final judgment because Wolf failed to
establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of
review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
59(e) and 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-36041