NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 December 5, 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 unus ual pun ishment. They allege that the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not p recedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. The memorandum disposition filed on December 4, 2018 is vacated.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 5 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

D efendant s 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 P laintiffs’ action was proper because P laintiffs failed to allege
facts sufficient to show that D efendants 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. 200 4) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of an d disregards an excessive risk to inmate health ). We have carefully examined the P laintiffs’ operative complaint and the documents attached to the complaint , including James Edw ards’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 allegations in the complaint or anything in the records attached to the complaint

— including Dr. Fan’s declaration

— that would
allow a court “t o draw the reasonable inference that the [ D efendants are] liable for the misconduct alleged. ” Ashcroft v. I qbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009 ) (citing Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Missing from the comp laint are3

any allegations not flatly contradicted by the records attached to the complaint that
the D efendants were deliberately indifferent to James Edward s ’s medical needs or
that th ey treated him with “conscious disregard” of an excessive risk to his health.
Jackson v. McIntosh , 90 F.3d 330, 332 ( 9th Cir. 1996). E ven i f we were to
conclude that the complaint and documents attached were enough to sufficiently allege that D efendants 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 d id not support the P laintiffs’ claim of
deliberate indifference in the face of all the other records attached to the complaint , even if the district court’s decision to strike the declaration from the first amended complaint was error, that error 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.