N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LUC INDA LOZANO; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C OUNTY OF SANTA C LAR A; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-15992 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-02634-EM C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd M . C he n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 10, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILER , ** C HR ISTEN, a nd FOR R EST, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs a

ppe a l the distric t

c o urt’ s R u le 12(b)(6) dism i ssa l of c la im s brought pursua

nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983 by the pa re nts of de c e a se d inm ate Johnny Loz ano. B e c a

u se the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts, we do not re c ite the m he re . 

# FIL ED SEP 8 2021 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.W e re vie w de novo a dism issa l for fa i lure to sta t e a c la im pursua nt to R ule 12(b)(6), Doughe rty

v . C ity of C ov ina , 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd we
re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion a

n orde r gra

nting dism

i ssa l without le ave to a

m e nd, OSU Stude nt All. v . Ray , 699 F.3d 1053, 1079 (9th C ir. 2012). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. Pla intiffs a

rgue the y a de quate ly

ple a de d tha

t the C ounty ’ s polic ie s a

m ounte d to de libe rate indiffe re nc e , a n d tha t the polic ie s we re the “ m o ving forc e ” be hind Loz ano’ s de ath pursua

nt to Mone ll v

. De

partme n t of Soc ial Se r

v ic e s, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 694 (1978). Se e Doughe rty , 654 F.3d a t 900. The distric t c ourt found tha t the Am e nde d C om

pla int a lle ge d thre e C o unty polic ie s: “ (1) fa iling to providelongte rm tre at m e nt pla ns for inm ate s,” (2) “ c anc e ling m e dic a l a p pointm e nts a

nd fa lsify ing the re a sons for doing so,” and (3) “ de ny ing m e dic a lly ne c e s sa ry tre atm e n t to inm ate s for fina n c ia l re a sons.” The pa

rtie s do not dispute that Loz ano ha d se rious m e dic a l ne e ds from the outse t of his de te ntion. W e c onc lude the Am e nde d C om pla int fa ile d to a lle ge de libe ra te indiffe re nc e due to a ny of the se polic i e s. First, while pla intiffs a

rgue tha t Loz ano wa s tre ate d with de libe ra te indiffe re nc e be c a use he wa s de nie d a

long-te rm

tre atm e nt pla

n, the y have not a lle ge d tha

t a re a sona ble offic e r would ha

ve known tha

t the a bse nc e of suc h a pla n c ould re s ult in furthe r signific ant injury or the unne c e s sa ry and
2wanton inflic tion of pa i n . J e tt v . Pe nne r , 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C i r. 2006); c f. Long v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 442 F.3d 1178 (9th C ir. 2006). Inde e d, pla intiffs
a lle ge tha t Loz ano wa s de nie d routine c are , but ne ve r spe c ify what routine c are Loz ano did not re c e ive tha t would ha

ve pre ve nte d his de ath. As thedistric t c ourt obse rve d, the a lle ge d fa c ts a re insuffic ie nt to ra ise an infe re nc e tha t a dditiona l routine tre atm e nt would ha ve pre ve nte d Loz ano’ s de c l ine and de ath. Se e Doughe r ty , 654 F.3d a

t 900. Pla intiffs’ argum e nt tha

t Loz ano suffe re d c onstitutiona l injury due to
c anc e lla tion of m e dic a l a

ppointm e n ts a lso fa ils. Loz ano wa s a b le to a c c e ss
m e dic a l c are on num e rous oc c a sions during his c onfine m e n t , a nd he wa s ne ve r de nie d tre atm e nt whe n sy m ptom atic . Though subje c t to som e de la y s, Loz ano
re c e ive d m o nitoring of his c ondition in the form of blood dra

ws, vita l sign c he c ks,
m e dic at ion, a

nd m e dic a l de vic e m onitoring, a nd his m e dic a l a

ppointm e nts we re a ll
e ve ntua lly

re sc he dule d. C

f. W ilhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th C ir. 2012). He nc e , pla intiffs ha ve not a de q

uate ly a lle ge d tha

t Loz ano e xpe rie nc e d
c onstitutiona

l ha rm due to de nia l of a

long-te rm

tre atm e nt pla

n or c anc e lla

tion of
m e dic a l a ppointm e nts. Pla intiffs a lso ha

ve not a de quate ly

a lle ge d tha

t Loz an o wa s de n ie d
m e dic at ion a

nd m e d ic a l atte ntion for fina nc i a l re a sons, or tha

t a ny suc h de nia l
3c a

use d Loz ano’ s de c line or de ath. W ith re ga rd to the de nia l of a

pote n tia l tra

nsfe r to Sta nford, while the C om

p l a int a lle ge s tha

t Loz a n o wa s not se nt for furthe r tre atm e n t for fina

n c ia l re a s ons (e .g. be c a

use the ja il sy ste m

c ould not c are for him post-tra nspla nt), pla intiffs a l s o a lle ge tha t Dr. Fowle r told Dr. Zha o tha t, in his opinion, Loz ano would not be a good fit for a

tra nspla nt. This doe s not c onstitute de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e by the C ounty , nor ha

ve pla intiffs a lle g e d tha

t, ha d Loz ano
re c e ive d the tra

nspla nt or som e othe r he art im

pla ntation, he would ha

ve survive d
. For the s e re a sons, we c onc lude tha t Loz an o did not pla

usibly a lle ge de libe rate indiffe re nc e due to a

C ounty polic y . 2. Pla intiffs furthe r argue tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by dism issing the ir § 1983
c la im a ga inst thedoc tor de fe n da nts. Pla intiffs ha

ve not a de quate ly

a l le ge d tha t a ny of the individual doc tors’ c onduc t c re ate d a “ substa n tia l risk of suffe ring se rious ha rm ” tha t “ a re a s ona ble offic ia l in thec irc um sta nc e s would ha

ve a ppre c i ate d,” nor tha t the ir c o nduc t c ause d Loz ano’ s de c line and de ath. Gordon v . C o unty of Orange , 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th C ir. 2018). The re fore , we c onc lude tha t the distric t c o urt did not err by dism issing the se c la im s . 3. Pla intiffs subm

it tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

de ny ing le ave to a m e nd on both the i r Mone ll c la im an d the i r c l a im s a ga inst thedoc tor de fe nda nts. Howe ve r, in the ir a

p p e lla te brie fing, pla intiffs ha

ve not indic at e d tha

t the y would
4be a

b le to a lle ge a d ditiona l fa c t s tha t c ould re de e m

the ir c l a im s. Thus, we
c onc lude the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by de ny ing le ave to a m e nd the c onstitutiona

l c la im s, a s gra

nting le ave to a

m e nd would like ly

be futile
. 4. Fina lly , pla i ntiffs a rgue the distric t

c o urt a b use d its disc re tion by dism issing the i r m e dic a l m a lpra c tic e and wrongful de ath c la im s without le ave to
am e nd be c a

use C a lifornia ’ s “ de la

y e d disc ove ry

doc trine ” should a

pply . W e
c onc lude tha

t pla intiffs ha

ve forfe i te d this a

rgum e nt be c a

use the y first ra ise d it in the i r m otion for re c o nside ra tion. Se e Orr v . Plumb , 884 F.3d 923, 932 (9th C ir. 2018).

AFFIRM E D.

5