Michael Earl Waters v. City of Culver City

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL EARL WATERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CULVER CITY; BROTMAN
MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; DON
PEDERSEN; ADAM TREANOR; JESSE
BUTLER; SCOTT NARIMATSU,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-55585
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09160-SJO-
MAN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 7, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Michael Earl Waters appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). He contends that
FILED
NOV 12 2013
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 --

the district court erred in concluding that defendants Brotman Medical Center
(“Brotman”) and Dr. Narimatsu were not “state actors.”
To state a § 1983 claim, Waters must allege not only that Brotman and
Narimatsu were state actors, see George v. Pacific–CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d
1227, 1230 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), but also that they acted with “deliberate
indifference” in their failure to provide him adequate medical treatment, see
Clouthier v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2010).
We need not reach the state action issue because Waters has not adequately alleged
deliberate indifference. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105–06 (1976).
Because dismissal of the § 1983 claim was proper, we do not disturb the
district court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Waters’s state law claims against Brotman and Narimatsu. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --