Daniel Verduzco v. C. E. Ducart;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL VERDUZCO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C. E. DUCART; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
G. KIMBREL,
Defendant.
No. 20-17100
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-04596-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Daniel Verduzco appeals pro se from the district
* 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
DEC 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17100
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his health and 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.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Verduzco
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his health in treating his July 27, 2016 tongue injury or
to his safely on August 17, 2016. 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 by denying Verduzco’s motion
to compel defendants to provide a copy of his deposition transcript. See Sopcak v.
N. Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard of
review); Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir. 1989) (expenditure of
public funds on indigent litigants’ discovery fees not authorized by Congress).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --