Webb

facts sufficient to show that these defendants’ acts harmed him. See Wilhelm v.

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that, to establish

deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show “(a) a purposeful act or failure to

24-2094 respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and (b) harm caused by the

indifference” (citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to

amend Webb’s claims against defendants Bullock, Coffey, Roberts, Bugher,

Wright, and Fleener, and his claims regarding physical therapy and a knee brace

against Miller-Saltarello and the Therapeutic Level of Care Committee Does,

because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans,

Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and

explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile);

see also Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc., 962 F.3d 405, 420 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining

that the court’s discretion is particularly broad when a plaintiff has previously been

granted leave to amend and has subsequently failed to add requisite…