NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY PAULINE EDWARDS; et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

K. HSIEH, individually; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16599 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00590-JAM-KJN 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 30, 2018**

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs, the heirs of former California inmate and decedent James 

Edwards, appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action predicated on a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s 

proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. They allege that the 

 

* 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

DEC 4 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

Defendants were deliberately indifferent to James Edwards’s medical needs 

resulting in his death. We have jurisdiction of this timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). 

We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside 

Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. 

Dismissal of Plaintiffs’ action was proper because Plaintiffs failed to allege 

facts sufficient to show that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to James 

Edwards’s aortic stenosis and other medical issues. 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).

We have carefully examined the Plaintiffs’ three hundred and ten page 

operative complaint, including James Edwards’s extensive medical records,

medical literature, and a declaration from Dr. Dali Fan, a clinical professor with 

the University of California, Davis, in the Division of Cardiology. We are unable 

to identify any evidence whatsoever in their complaint—including Dr. Fan’s 

declaration—that would allow a court “to draw the reasonable inference that the 

[Defendants are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). 

Missing from the complaint is any evidence that the Defendants were deliberately 
 3 

indifferent to James Edwards’s medical needs or that they treated him with 

“conscious disregard” of an excessive risk to his health. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 

F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if we were to conclude that the Defendants 

were negligent in their treatment of James Edwards—which we do not—“[m]ere 

negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not 

violate a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.” Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057 

(quoting McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (alteration and 

citation omitted)).

Because Dr. Fan’s declaration did not add any support for the Plaintiffs’ 

claim of deliberate indifference, the district court’s decision to strike it from the 

first amended complaint was harmless.

Plaintiffs’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted.

Defendants County of San Joaquin, Priyasheelta Nand, and Ramesh 

Dharawat’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 37) is granted. 

AFFIRMED.