FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 9 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRAISURE EARL SMITH, No. 13-16624
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00142-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SOLANO COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 23, 2014***
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Fraisure Earl Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of medical treatment while
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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).
confined in Solano County Jail pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator
Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v.
Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
We do not decide what legal standard applies to this case because, under
either the “professional judgment” or “deliberate indifference” standard, Smith
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants
improperly denied him medical treatment. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307,
321-23 (1982) (imposing liability where a decision is “such a substantial departure
from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that
the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment”);
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (prison officials act with
deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to
inmate health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion
to amend the deadline for dispositive motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)
(requiring good cause); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th
Cir. 2002) (stating standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16624