Jeffrey E. Rodriguez v. Corizon Medical;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY E. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORIZON MEDICAL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16272
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00674-MMD-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey E. Rodriguez, a former Washoe County pretrial detainee, appeals pro
se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging deliberate indifference to his serious dental and medical needs. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213
* 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
JAN 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-16272
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v.
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez’s action because Rodriguez
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious dental or medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he
or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a
difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in
diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); see
also Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1241 (9th Cir. 2010)
(deliberate indifference standard applies to pretrial detainees).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rodriguez leave to
leave because amendment would have been 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 amendment would be futile).
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised
and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-16272
(9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --