Francisco Villasenor v. L. Zamora

611 F. App'x 465
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 4, 2015
Docket13-56628
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 611 F. App'x 465 (Francisco Villasenor v. L. Zamora) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Francisco Villasenor v. L. Zamora, 611 F. App'x 465 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Francisco Vil-lasenor appeals pro se from the district *466 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 the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal without leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Villasenor’s action because Villasenor failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by denying him certain medical devices. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.2004) (requirements of a medical deliberate indifference claim); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim). '

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Villasenor leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (leave to amend should be given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Horne v. Golden Empire Transit
E.D. California, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
611 F. App'x 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francisco-villasenor-v-l-zamora-ca9-2015.