Geraldine Darden v. Christopher L. Driscoll

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALDINE KELLEY DARDEN, No. 17-15015
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01001-EPG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTOPHER L. DRISCOLL, as
executor of the estate of Dr. Scott H. M.
Driscoll,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 15, 2017***
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Geraldine Kelley Darden, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Darden’s Eighth
Amendment claim because Darden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether Dr. Driscoll knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to her serious
medical needs. See id. (to demonstrate deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must
show “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible
medical need and . . . harm caused by the indifference”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the expert
declarations of two doctors submitted by Dr. Driscoll in support of his motion for
summary judgment. See Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 563, 566-67 (9th Cir.
2010) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for admitting expert
testimony).
Darden’s motions for appointment of an expert witness, to enforce the
district court’s order for subpoena duces tecum, and to supplement the record on
appeal (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 14, 32) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-15015