Richard Johnston v. Karen Gedney ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD JOHNSTON, No. 19-17560
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00754-MMD-
WGC
v.
KAREN GEDNEY; ROMEO ARANAS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Richard Johnston 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. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross-motions for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
summary judgment. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d
1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
because Johnston failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants were deliberately indifferent to Johnston’s chronic back pain. See Starr
v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for
supervisory liability under § 1983); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060-61
(9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a
defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnston’s requests
to stay discovery because Johnston failed to adhere to the district court’s local rules
and did not diligently pursue discovery prior to requesting a stay. See Bias v.
Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for discovery
rulings and district court’s compliance with its local rules); Cornwell v. Electra
Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court was
within its discretion to deny discovery motion, where the movant’s prior discovery
efforts were not diligent).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 19-17560
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-17560