FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRVING C. HUMPHREY, No. 11-17844
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00075-LJO-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES A. YATES, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Irving C. Humphrey, a California state prisoner, 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 in connection with his
*
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).
exposure to valley fever. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Yates
because Humphrey failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Yates personally participated in any alleged constitutional violations. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (a plaintiff must plead that each
defendant violated the Constitution through his own individual actions); Taylor v.
List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (supervisor is liable for constitutional
violations of subordinates only if he “participated in or directed the violations, or
knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them”); see also Toguchi, 391
F.3d at 1058 (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 denying Humphrey’s request
to appoint an independent medical expert because Humphrey failed to show that it
was necessary. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180
F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of review and noting that
district court has discretion whether to appoint an expert under Fed. R. Evid.
706(a)).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17844