LUKE WAINE CAINES, Jr. v. M. INTERIAN, Dr., DDS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUKE WAINE CAINES, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
M. INTERIAN, Dr., DDS,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-55597
D.C. No.
5:19-cv-00666-PA-KS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Luke Waine Caines, Jr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s dismissal of (1) his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need with prejudice and (2) his
FILED
AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 3 --

associated state law claims without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal of Caines’s federal claim de novo, see
Kennedy v. S. Cal. Edison, Co., 268 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir. 2001), and for abuse of
discretion the district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over his state law claims after dismissing his federal claim. Costanich
v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Caines’s claim of deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need because Caines did not allege facts sufficient
to state a plausible claim. It is not enough to allege that Interian should have
known that Caines suffered from a bone spicule and oroantral fistula—to sustain a
claim the prison official must “know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to
inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of harm exists, and he must also
draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Nor does an
official violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights when prescribing a
medication that he has no reason to believe will result in an adverse reaction.
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, Caines’s
allegations of a delay in surgery, without any evidence that the delay “caused
2

-- 2 of 3 --

substantial harm,” cannot support a deliberate indifference claim. Wood v.
Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1990).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Caines’s state
law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing his constitutional
claim. See San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478 & n. 12
(9th Cir. 1998) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)). Even if we were to construe
Caines’s claims as constitutional claims, as he argues, the district court was correct
to dismiss them. Negligence is not a sufficient ground for a constitutional
violation, Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057, and Caines’s alleged “mental and emotional
injury,” does not rise to the level of a “serious medical need.” Doty v. Cty. of
Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1994) (mental health conditions must also
reach the requisite level of seriousness).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --