FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARL THOMPSON, No. 09-17421
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00605-SRB-
CRP
v.
FRANK LUNA, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Carl Thompson, an Alaska state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference
to his hand injuries and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001).
*
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).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Luna
because Thompson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Luna “participated in or directed the [alleged] violations, or knew of the [alleged]
violations and failed to act to prevent them,” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045
(9th Cir. 1989), or whether “a policy or custom . . . played a part in the [alleged]
violation[s],” Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Ortiz
because Thompson failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Ortiz knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Thompson’s health and safety.
See Toguchi v Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A prison official acts
with ‘deliberate indifference . . . only if the [prison official] knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety.’” (brackets in original)
(citation omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Thompson’s state
law claims because Thompson failed to rebut with expert medical testimony
defendants’ showing that they met the appropriate standard of care and did not
cause or aggravate his hand injuries. See Trombley v. Starr-Wood Cardiac Group,
PC, 3 P.3d 916, 919 (Alaska 2000) (“[E]xpert testimony is needed to establish
2 09-17421
medical malpractice claim” except “in non-technical situations where negligence is
evident to lay people.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
Riedisser v. Nelson, 534 P.2d 1052, 1054 (Ariz. 1975) (same legal standard for
medical malpractice claim under Arizona law).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint
without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (a district court need not grant leave to
amend where amendment would be futile).
Thompson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Thompson’s request for sanctions is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-17421