United States v. 2022-06-24 | 20-17140 | ANTHONY SOLIS V. CHARLES RYAN | nonprecedential | memorandum…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY LOZANO SOLIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of Arizona
Department of Corrections; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17140
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02378-ROS-CDB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Anthony Lozano Solis appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We
affirm.
* 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).
FILED
JUN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17140
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Solis failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be
aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists, and he [or she] must also draw the inference”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Solis’s motion to
compel because the denial did not result in actual or substantial prejudice. See
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of
review and holding a district court’s “decision to deny discovery will not be
disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in
actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant”).
Solis’s motion for an in camera review of court logs, set forth in his reply
brief, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --