Ricardo Guzman v. MERLE SOGGE, Dr.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO GUZMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MERLE SOGGE, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16177
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05634-JD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ricardo Guzman appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among other
things, deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under
* 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).
FILED
MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-16177
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Guzman’s claim because Guzman
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted with deliberate
indifference in performing his liver biopsy and treating his post-biopsy pain and
injury. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison
official acts with deliberate indifference only if the prison official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice,
negligence, or a mere difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment is
insufficient); 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 by denying leave to amend
after providing one opportunity to amend and concluding that further amendment
would be 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 the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment);
see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (the district

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-16177
court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where it has
afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --