N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AR VIE B . C ARR OLL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. K. DUTR A, C orre c t iona l Offic e r; SOTO, La b Assista nt Te c hnic ia

n, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-15405 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00623-LJO-SKO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2014 ** B e fore : PREGER SON, LEAVY, a nd M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. Arvie B . C arroll, a C a lifornia sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his serious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion under 

# FIL ED MAR 18 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use C a rroll fa i le d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he ha d a

se rious m e dic a l ne e d at the tim e of the inc ide nt. Se eJ e tt v . Pe nne r , 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2006) (a se rious m e dic a l ne e d e xists if a fa ilure to tre at a

prisone r’ s c ondition c ould re sult in further signific ant injury or the unne c e s sa ry and wa nton inflic tion of pa in). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in adm itting de fe nda nts’ e xpe rt’ s te s tim ony . Se e Stilw e ll v . Smith & N e phe w , Inc ., 482 F.3d 1187, 1191-92 (9th C ir. 2007) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd re quire m e nts for e xpe rt te stim ony unde r Fe d. R . Evid. 702; noting tha t the distric t

c o urt’ s ruling is entitle d to de fe re nc e , e ve n whe n the e xpe rt te stim ony de te rm ine s the outc om e of a c a se ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in e xc luding portions of his a nd his wife ’ s de c la

rations. Se eSe a-Land Se rv ., Inc . v . Loze n Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 813 (9th C i r. 2002) (se tting forth the sta nda rd of re vie wan d re q

uiring a showing of pre j udic e for re ve rsa l of a

n e v ide ntia ry ruling). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing C a rroll’ s re que st for a ppointm e nt of a

n e xpe rt witne ss be c a

use the a c tion did not involve c om p le x 1 3 - 1 5 4 0 5 2sc ie ntific e v ide nc e or c om p le x issue s. S

e e Mc K inne y v . Ande rson , 924 F.2d 1500, 1511 (9th C ir. 1991), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by He lling v . Mc

K inne y , 502 U.S. 903 (1991) (sta

nda rd of re vie w). C arroll’ s “ R e que st to UseC om ple te Origina l R e c ord on Appe a l,” file d on M arc h 18, 2013, is de

nie d a s unne c e ssa

ry . B e c a use C a rroll is proc e e ding without c ounse l, the e xc e rpts of re c ord re quire m e nt is wa ive d. Se e 9th C ir. R . 30-1.2. The pa rtie s’ re que sts for judic ia l notic e , se t forth in the ir brie fs, a re grante d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 5 4 0 5 3