U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2026

Valdez Dominguez v. Burke

Valdez Dominguez v. Burke
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 27, 2026
Valdez Dominguez v. Burke

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOE VALDEZ DOMINGUEZ, No. 25-115 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-09416-EMC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTOPHER BURKE; MD ABRAHAM; DUC NGUYEN, MD; R. ROSS, MD; YASMEN SHAUFTAN, MD; J. GASCA, MD; Dr. CARL BOURNE; LAWRENCE GAMBOA; J. JAVATE; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; Dr. DARRIN BRIGHT; Dr. KUMAR; RYAN KIM, Dr.; Dr. QINGBO SUI, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Joe Valdez Dominguez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in connection with his treatment for gallstones. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dominguez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered from a serious medical need or whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his gallstones. See Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that to make out a claim for deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must demonstrate both the existence of a serious medical need and that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend after granting summary judgment. See Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and factors to consider in assessing a motion for leave to amend).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-115

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.