Arvie Carroll v. K. Dutra , 564 F. App'x 327 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARVIE B. CARROLL, No. 13-15405
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00623-LJO-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
K. DUTRA, Correctional Officer; SOTO,
Lab Assistant Technician,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Arvie B. Carroll, 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 Carroll failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he had a serious medical
need at the time of the incident. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.
2006) (a serious medical need exists if a failure to treat a prisoner’s condition
could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting defendants’
expert’s testimony. See Stilwell v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 482 F.3d 1187, 1191-92
(9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for expert
testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702; noting that the district court’s ruling is entitled
to deference, even when the expert testimony determines the outcome of a case).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of his and
his wife’s declarations. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808,
813 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the standard of review and requiring a showing of
prejudice for reversal of an evidentiary ruling).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carroll’s request for
appointment of an expert witness because the action did not involve complex
2 13-15405
scientific evidence or complex issues. See McKinney v. Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500,
1511 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Helling v. McKinney, 502
U.S. 903 (1991) (standard of review).
Carroll’s “Request to Use Complete Original Record on Appeal,” filed on
March 18, 2013, is denied as unnecessary. Because Carroll is proceeding without
counsel, the excerpts of record requirement is waived. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1.2.
The parties’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in their briefs, are granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15405