N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE C A RLOS R ODR IGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C . WU; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-57198 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01339-C JC -PJW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2014 ** B e fore : PR EGER SON, LEAVY, a n d M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . C a lifornia sta te prisone r Jose C arlos R odrigue z a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. K nie v e l v . ESPN

, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th C ir.



# FIL ED MAR 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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).2005). W e a ffirm .

The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d R odrigue z ’ s de libe rate indiffe re nc e c la im be c a use R odrigue zfa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nts kne w of a nd disre ga

rde d a n e xc e ssive risk to Rodrigue z ’ s he a l th by de te rm ining that R odrigue z did not ne e d soft shoe s a nd a rc h supports for his fe e t. Se eToguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (de libe rate indiffe re nc e is a high le ga l sta

nda rd, m e t only

if the de fe nda

nt knows of a

nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to theprisone r’ s he a lth; ne glige nc e an d a m e re diffe re nc e in m e dic a l opinion a re insuffic ie nt); se e also C o rale s v . Be n ne t , 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th C ir. 2009) (no supe rvisor lia

bility if no unde rly ing c onstitutiona l viola tion); Ramire

z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [I] nm ate s la c k a se pa rate c onstitutiona

l e ntitle m e nt to a

spe c ific grie va

nc e proc e dure .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d R odrigue z ’ s c la im s unde r the Am e ric ans with Disa

b i litie s Ac t (“ A DA” ) and R e ha bilita tion Ac t be c a

use the c la im s we re ba se d on ina de quate tre atm e nt. Se eSimmons v . N av ajo C ounty , Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ The ADA prohibits disc rim i nation be c a

use of disa bility , not ina de quate tre atm e nt for disa bility .” ); se ealso C

oons v . Se c ’yof U.S. De p’t of Tre a sury , 383 F.3d 879, 884 (9th C ir. 2004) (sa m e sta nda rds a pply to the A DA a

n d R e ha b ilita t ion Ac t). 1 2 - 5 7 1 9 8

2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng R odrigue z ’ s re que s t for le ave to file a

third a m e nde d c om

pla i nt a fte r providing R

odrigue z with two opportunitie s to a

m e nd a nd c onc luding tha

t furthe r am e ndm e nt would be futile . Se e Hartmann v . C al. De p’t of C orr. &Re h ab. , 707 F.3d 1114, 1129-30 (9th C ir. 2013) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t le ave to a

m e nd m ay be de nie d if a

m e ndm e nt would befutile ). W e do not c onside r issue s ra ise d by R odrigue z in his brie f whic h a re not supporte d by argum e nt . Se e Ac osta-Hue rta v . Este lle , 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th C ir. 1992). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 7 1 9 8 3