N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOR GE L. C OR ONA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. R OB ER T C R

AB TREE; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15707 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-01581-LJO-M JS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Jorge L. C orona , a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his sa fe ty

and se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Re snic k v . Hay e

s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th 

# FIL ED JAN 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C ir. 2000) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d

1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d C orona ’ s a c tion be c a u se C orona

fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nts we re de libe rate ly

indiffe re nt to his sa fe ty at work or to his le g burns. Se e Farme r v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison offic ia l is de libe rat e ly indiffe re n t only if he or she “ knows of a nd disre ga rds a n e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a l th or sa fe ty ” ); Gibson v . C ounty of W ashoe , N e v . , 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ If a pe rson should ha

v e be e n aware of the risk, but wa s not, the n the pe rson ha s not viola te d the Eighth Am e ndm e nt, no m atte r how se v e re the risk.” ); se e also Toguc hi v . C h ung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1058-60 (9th C ir. 2004) (a diffe re nc e of opinion c onc e rning thec ourse of m e dic a l tre atm e nt doe s not a m ount to de libe rate indiffe re nc e ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing C orona ’ s first am e nde d c o m

pla int without le ave to a

m e nd a fte r providing C orona with one opportunity

to a m e nd a nd c o nc luding tha

t furthe r am e ndm e nt would befutile . Se e Lope z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba n c ) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t le ave to a

m e n d should begive n unle ss am e ndm e nt would befutile ); se e also C hodos v . W

e st Publ’g C

o. , 292 F.3d 992,

1 4 - 1 5 7 0 7 21003 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ [W ] he n a distric t c ourt ha s a lre a dy grante d a pla intiff le ave to a m e nd, its disc re tion in de c iding subse que nt m otions to a m e nd is pa

rtic ula rly broa d.” (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 7 0 7 3