FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODERICK L. MITCHELL, No. 10-16929
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02284-FCD-
CMK
v.
ROXAN SANDERS; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Roderick L. Mitchell, a California 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.
**
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 district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and for an
abuse of discretion a dismissal without leave to amend, Halet v. Wend Inv. Co.,
672 F.2d 1305, 1310 (9th Cir. 1982). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Mitchell failed to
state sufficient facts to show that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to
his carpal tunnel condition. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir.
2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety, and a
difference in medical opinion is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Mitchell’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (a district court need
not grant leave to amend if the defects of the complaint cannot be cured).
Mitchell’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16929