Francisco Villasenor v. L. D. Zamora, individual and official capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO VILLASENOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. D. ZAMORA, individual and official
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-56628
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01957-SJO-PJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Francisco Villasenor appeals pro se from the district
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.
FILED
AUG 04 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 --

§ 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.
13-56628 2

-- 2 of 2 --