United States v. 2020-03-10 | 19-55666 | VICTOR SEVERANCE V. WU CHENG | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR LEE SEVERANCE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WU CHENG, Dr., in individual and official
capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,

Defendants.,

No. 19-55666

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08053-VBF-PLA

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

*
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).

FILED

MAR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55666
California state prisoner Victor Lee Severance 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.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Severance’s deliberate indifference
claim because Severance failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants
were deliberately indifferent in diagnosing or treating his chest pains. See Hebbe
v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir.
2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice,
negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not
amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly dismissed Severance’s official-capacity claims as
barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816,
825 (9th Cir. 2007) (state officials sued in their official capacities for damages are
entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Severance further

3 19-55666
leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City of
Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile);
Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that a
district court’s discretion is “particularly broad” when it has already granted leave
to amend (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.