Rodriguez v. Wu, 031814 FED9, 12-57198

Docket Nº:12-57198
Party Name:JOSE CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. WU; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 18, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

JOSE CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C. WU; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-57198

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 18, 2014

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted March 10, 2014 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01339-CJC-PJW

Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

California state prisoner Jose Carlos Rodriguez 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. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez's deliberate indifference claim because Rodriguez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Rodriguez's health by determining that Rodriguez did not need soft shoes and arch supports for his feet. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, met only if the defendant knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient); see also Corales v. Bennet, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009) (no supervisor liability if no underlying constitutional violation); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific grievance procedure.").

The district court properly dismissed Rodriguez's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Rehabilitation Act because the claims were based on inadequate treatment. See Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) ("The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability."); see also Coons v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 884 (9th Cir. 2004) (same standards apply to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act).

The...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP