FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JARMAAL SMITH, No. 13-15869
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:10-cv-04389-CW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NANCY ADAMS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jarmaal Smith 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.
*
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).
§ 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 Smith failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to the treatment of his headaches, facial twitching, and
chest pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference
only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health;
negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s discovery
requests because the requested discovery would not have helped Smith prove a
viable claim. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that summary judgment is appropriate,
even in the face of additional discovery requests, where “such discovery would be
‘fruitless’ with respect to the proof of a viable claim” (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15869