NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, No. 15-17262
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01090-LJO-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
G. KELLY, M.D. Psychologist at Corcoran
State Prison #1; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 08, 2018**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jamisi Jermaine Calloway, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Fellowship v. Cty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Calloway’s
retaliation claims because Calloway failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendants acted with retaliatory motive or whether their
conduct failed to advance a legitimate penological purpose. See Rhodes v.
Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a
retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th
Cir. 1995) (“[A] successful retaliation claim requires a finding that the prison
authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional
institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Calloway’s medical deliberate
indifference claim because Calloway failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
defendants disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Calloway’s health. See
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the elements
of a medical deliberate indifference claim); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (standard of review for dismissals under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
2 15-17262
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Calloway’s
requests for further discovery because Calloway does not show actual and
substantial prejudice. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th
Cir. 2003) (stating that “a decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except
upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and
substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Calloway’s requests for oral argument and to appear by video conference
(Dkt. 29) are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-17262