Case ID: f-appx_507/html/0679-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carl Lee CALLEGARI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. LEE, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17945.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2013.
    Carl Lee Callegari, Represa, CA, pro se.
    John Randall Andrada, Esquire, Valerie Ly, Andrada & Associates Professional Corporation, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Carl Lee Calle-gari appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with adequate treatment for hepatitis. 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 because Callegari failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in their treatment of his hepatitis. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Callegari’s motion to compel discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002)(setting forth standard of review and describing trial court’s broad discretion to deny discovery).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entertaining defendants’ successive motion for summary judgment. See Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911-12 (9th Cir.2010) (setting forth standard of review and describing trial court’s broad discretion to permit successive motions for summary judgment).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for. publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.