Joshua D. Brodsky v. NEVEN, Warden;

15-15009Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSep 3, 2015

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA D. BRODSKY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NEVEN, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-15009
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01064-RFB-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Joshua D. Brodsky, a Nevada state prisoner, 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
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.
2011); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Brodsky’s action because Brodsky
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. See Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (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; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are
insufficient).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brodsky leave to
amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
and noting that district court may dismiss without leave to amend when
amendment would be futile).
Brodsky’s “motion for appeal for reconsideration denial,” filed on July 27,
2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
15-15009 2

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.