Jonathan Ploof v. Charles Ryan , 689 F. App'x 522 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 21 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JONATHAN MICHAEL PLOOF,                         No. 16-15239
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00946-DGC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of the
    Arizona Department of Corrections; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 11, 2017**
    Before:      GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Arizona state prisoner Jonathan Michael Ploof 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). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-
    Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 
    389 F.3d 802
    , 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
    Summary judgment on Ploof’s deliberate indifference claim was proper
    because Ploof failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether delays
    in receiving treatment and medication caused further injury to his heart condition
    and could be attributed to defendants’ alleged failure to implement policies to
    ensure the timely provision of health care services. See Hallett v. Morgan, 
    296 F.3d 732
    , 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner alleging that the delay of medical
    treatment evinces deliberate indifference to a serious medical need must show that
    the delay led to further injury); Hansen v. Black, 
    885 F.2d 642
    , 646 (9th Cir. 1989)
    (“Supervisory liability exists . . . if supervisory officials implement a policy so
    deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the
    moving force of the constitutional violation.” (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted)).
    To the extent that Ploof alleged that the failure to provide him with a cardiac
    diet evinces deliberate indifference to his heart condition, the district court
    properly granted summary judgment because Ploof failed to raise a genuine dispute
    of material fact as to whether Ploof’s diet was inadequate or the result of any
    policy or practice implemented by defendants. See Mendiola–Martinez v. Arpaio,
    
    836 F.3d 1239
    , 1259 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The Eighth Amendment requires only that
    2                                     16-15239
    prisoners receive food that is adequate to maintain health.” (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted)); Hansen, 
    885 F.2d at 646
    .
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ploof’s motion to
    continue summary judgment and request for additional time to conduct discovery
    because Ploof did not “show[] by affidavit or declaration” that he was unable to
    “present facts essential to justify” his opposition to defendants’ motion for
    summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); see also Tatum v. City & County of San
    Francisco, 
    441 F.3d 1090
    , 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review
    and explaining that the party seeking a continuance must identify the “specific
    facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would
    preclude summary judgment”).
    We reject as without merit Ploof’s contention that the district court erred in
    declining to consider Ploof’s incorporation by reference of entire documents in his
    opposition to summary judgment.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                     16-15239