Jesse Allred v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE ALLRED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants,
and
DUROY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-16770
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01571-LJO-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
* 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
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-16770
California state prisoner Jesse Allred 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. § 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 Allred failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his wrist fracture and whether he experienced significant
harm as a result of any delay in treatment. See id. at 1060-61 (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence or difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference);
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745 (9th Cir. 2002) (prisoner must show delay
led to significant harm).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allred’s discovery
motion because Allred failed to demonstrate that the denial of discovery resulted in
actual and substantial prejudice to him. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342
F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that a district court’s “decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed
except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery result[ed] in actual

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-16770
and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Allred’s contention that the district court applied
an incorrect legal standard in granting summary judgment for the defendants.
Allred’s motion to file an oversized brief (Docket Entry No. 21) is granted.
The Clerk is instructed to file the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 22.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --