Floyd Perryman v. Jasdeep Bal , 691 F. App'x 881 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOYD PERRYMAN, No. 16-16705
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00680-WBS-EFB
v.
JASDEEP BAL, Chief Medical Officer, MEMORANDUM*
CSP - Sacramento,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Floyd Perryman, 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. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Perryman
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was
deliberately indifferent to his thumb injury. See id. at 1057-60 (deliberate
indifference is a high legal standard; a difference of medical opinion concerning
the course of treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice does not amount to
deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.
2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence
in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perryman’s motion
to amend his complaint because any amendment would be futile. See AE ex rel.
Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth
standard of review); Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007)
(dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper “if it is
absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by
amendment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perryman’s motion
for additional discovery because Perryman did not demonstrate how additional
discovery would defeat summary judgment. See Qualls By & Through Qualls v.
Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth standard of
2 16-16705
review and explaining that district court properly denied Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (now
Rule 56(d)) motion where additional requested discovery would not have
precluded summary judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perryman’s motion
for the appointment of medical experts because Perryman failed to show that such
an appointment was necessary. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term
Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1070-71 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of
review and noting that district court has discretion to appoint an expert where such
an appointment is necessary).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16705