N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSEPH SM ITH, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JEFFR EY W ANG; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15004 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-01222-SKO
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 She ila K. Obe rto, M a g i strate Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2015 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, SILVER

M AN, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Jose ph Sm ith a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his 42 U.S.C . § 1983
a c tion a lle ging de l ibe ra te indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

n d re vie w the de nia l of le a ve to a m e nd 

# FIL ED D EC 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).for an

a buse of disc re tion. Lope

z v . Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing the first a

m e nde d
c om pla i nt without gra

nting le a ve to file a

se c ond a m e nde d c om

pla int be c a

u se the de fic ie nc ie s in the first a

m e n d e d c om

pla int c annot be c ure d by am e ndm e nt. Id. A t
m ost, Sm ith sta

t e s a ne glige nc e c la im

a g a inst the surge o n, whic h doe s not rise to the l e ve l of de libe ra te indiffe re nc e . E ste lle v . Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976); Toguc hi v . C

hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th C ir. 2004). Nor c an Sm ith a

m e nd to sta

te a c l a im a ga inst the prison doc tors. Sm ith only
a lle ge s a diffe re nc e of opinion re ga rding tre atm e nt, not de l ibe ra te indiffe re nc e . Toguc hi , 391 F.3d 1059-60. M ore ove r, the doc um e nts a tta c h e d to Sm ith’ s c om pla i nts c ontra dic t a

ny c onc lusory

a lle gations tha

t the prison doc tors re fuse d to provide or de la

y e d tre a tm e nt. W

ilhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xhibits a

tta c he d to the c o m

pla int m ay

be c onside re d to de c i de whe the r dism issa l is prope r); Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (c onc lusory
a lle gations not supporte d by fa c tua l a l le gations do not sta te a pla usible c la im ). AFFIRM E D.

2Smith v . W

ang , No. 14-15004 B EA, C i rc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt: The m a jority c orre c tly c onc lude s tha

t the de fic ie nc ie s in the first a m e nde d
c om pla i nt (“ FAC ” ) a s to de fe nda nts Yu a nd Pa i k c annot be c ure d by am e ndm e nt; the d oc um e nts submitte d by Sm ith re but the c la im

a ga inst Drs. Yu a

nd Pa i k. Howe v e r, I would re ve rse and re m and a s to Sm ith’ s c la im a ga i nst Dr. W ang. The FAC a lle ge d

tha t in Fe brua

ry , 2011, le ss tha

n a m onth a fte r Sm i th’ s Ja

nua ry 26, 2011 kne e -re pla c e m e n t surge ry :

Exa ct l y at the point whe re the pa i n wa s a t [its] w ors[t] , Pla intiff’ s m e dic a tion wa s sudde nly una va ila ble t o him
. . . . Pla i ntiff [re que s te d] t hat he be se e n b y the Fa c ility M .D. ( at that t im e , d ef e nda nt W an g) to have his le g and k ne e e xam ine d for the swe lling . . .
. On Fe brua ry 16th, 2011, P l ai n t iff wa s duc ate d t o [a m e d ic a l fa c i lity ] to se e the R

N (R e g iste re d Nurse) re ga rding the [form ] he ’ d subm itte d to hav e his leg & k n e e e xam ine d , and his m e dic a tion f o r pa i n re n e we d. Pla intiff wa s sc re e ne d by the RN o n duty who, in t urn, c onta c te d de fe nda

nt W ang. The R

N a dvised

. . . t hat de fe nda

nt W a n g re fuse d to se e Pla intiff, to e ithe r take a look at the kne e , or re ne w p a in m e dic a t ion. Sm i th subm itte d doc um e nts tha t show tha

t a fte r he file d a

he a l th-c are a

ppe a l, he
e ve ntua lly

re c e ive d a

n in-c linic e va luation on April 13, 2011, a t whic h point a
nurse pra c titione r m a de note tha t Sm ith wa s pre sc ribe d pa in m e dic a tion through



# FIL ED D EC 28 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

1M ay

20, 2011. Howe v e r, the doc um e nts do not e s ta blish tha t Sm ith re c e ive d this
unna m e d m e dic a tion from

the tim e of his Ja

nua ry surge ry to the April 13, 2011
a ppointm e nt. Sm ith a lle ge d tha t he ran out of pa in m e dic a tion. The doc um e nts
c an be re a d to sta

t e tha t at his April 13, 2011 c onsulta tion, Sm ith wa s pre sc ribe d the unna m e d m e dic ation, good through M ay 20, 2011. Unde r this inte rpre tation, Sm i th wa s without pain m e dic a tion for two m onths, from Fe brua ry to April 13, 2011. Eve n if Sm i th did re c e ive the unna m e d m e dic a tion c ontinuously a fte r his surge ry , the doc um e n ts still do not e s ta blish tha t Sm ith wa s re c e iving a de quate pa in m e dic ation, suc h

a s m orphine or Sa lsa late , both of whic h Sm ith re c e ive d at
som e point be twe e n Fe brua ry and July 2011. The unna

m e d m e dic a tion m ay

have be e n M otrin, to whic h

othe r doc um e nts submitte d by Sm ith re fe r. The doc um e nts subm itte d show tha

t Sm i th c onsiste ntly c om

pla ine d tha

t M otrin wa s ina de quate to tre a t his pa in a

nd tha t he ne e de d stronge r pa in m e dic a tion whic h he did not re c e ive
and whic h Dr. W ang re fuse d to pre sc ribe
. A m e dic a l ne e d is se rious if fa ilure to tre a t it will re s ult in signific an t injury or the unne c e ssa

ry an d wa nton inflic tion of pa i n. Pe ralta v . Dillard , 744 F.3d 1076, 1082 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (inte rna l quota

tions omitte d). A prison offic ia l is de l ibe rate ly

indiffe re nt to tha

t ne e d if he knows of a

nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to inm a te he a lth. Id . Ac c ording to the a lle gations of theFAC , Dr.
2W ang kne w tha t Sm ith ha d unde rgone m a jor surge ry

and re fuse d to se e Sm ith whe n Sm ith c om

pla ine d of pa in. Nothing in the

doc um e n ts subm itte d re buts Sm i th’ s a lle gation tha

t he wa s not re c e iving a de quate pa in m e dic ation a s of Fe brua ry 16, 2011, nor tha

t Dr. W ang sim

ply re fuse d to tre a t him . As Dr. W ang c ould pre sc ribe m e dic a tion, Sm ith ha s a lle ge d fa c ts suffic ie n t to sta te a pla u sible
c la im for re lie f for Dr. W a

ng’ s a lle ge d de libe ra te indiffe re nc e . M e re fa ilure to pre s c ribe a de quate pa in m e dic a tion m ay sta te only a c la im in ne glige nc e . B ut we
m ust a c c e pt Sm ith’ s a l le gations a s true e xc e pt to thee xte nt tha t the y are re butte d by the doc um e nts he subm itte d. Whe n it is a l le ge d tha t the a tte n ding phy sic ia

n re fuse d to se e the patie nt a nd re fuse d to re ne w pa in m e dic a tion, a bse nt e vide nc e that the phy sic ia

n wa s e xe rc ising his me dic a l judgm e nt, a c la im ha s be e n sta

te d that the phy sic ia

n wa s de libe rate ly

indiffe re nt. At this sta

ge , tha t is a ll tha t is
re quire d. Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009).

3