Skip to main content

ALLRED v. Duroy; et al., Defendants-Appellees. (2021)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jesse ALLRED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants, Duroy; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16770

Decided: January 26, 2021

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Jesse Allred, Pro Se David Charles Goodwin, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees


California state prisoner Jesse Allred 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 Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Allred failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his wrist fracture and whether he experienced significant harm as a result of any delay in treatment. See id. at 1060-61 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence or difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner must show delay led to significant harm).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allred's discovery motion because Allred failed to demonstrate that the denial of discovery resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to him. See Laub v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court's “decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery result[ed] in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Allred's contention that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in granting summary judgment for the defendants.

Allred's motion to file an oversized brief (Docket Entry No. 21) is granted. The Clerk is instructed to file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 22.


Copied to clipboard