Daniel Verduzco v. C. Ducart ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 16 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DANIEL VERDUZCO,                                No. 20-17100
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:18-cv-04596-JSW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    C. E. DUCART; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    and
    G. KIMBREL,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2021**
    Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Daniel Verduzco appeals pro se from the district
    *
    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).
    court’s summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging deliberate
    indifference to his health and safety. 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 Verduzco
    failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
    deliberately indifferent to his health in treating his July 27, 2016 tongue injury or
    to his safely on August 17, 2016. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837
    (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and
    disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be
    aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
    serious harm exists, and he [or she] must also draw the inference”).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Verduzco’s motion
    to compel defendants to provide a copy of his deposition transcript. See Sopcak v.
    N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 
    52 F.3d 817
    , 818 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard of
    review); Tedder v. Odel, 
    890 F.2d 210
    , 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (expenditure of
    public funds on indigent litigants’ discovery fees not authorized by Congress).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    20-17100