T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). I L/RESEARCH NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R AL P H H OWAR D B L AK E L Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. H E R B S N I V E L Y , C .U .S .; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 35889 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 8 0 3 - R AJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c ha r d A . J one s , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , A N D C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R a l ph H ow a r d B l a ke l y , aW a s hi ngt on s t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e ntf orde f e nda nt s i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on



# FI LED JAN 12 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI L/RESEARCH 2

a l l e gi ng de l i be r a t e i ndi f f e r e nc e t o hi s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew de no vo an order grant i ng sum m ary ju d g m e n t, T

oguc hiv . Chung , 391 F . 3d 1051, 1056 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , f ora n abus e of di s c r e t i on a n or de rde ny i ng di s c ove ryunde rR ul e 56( f ) of the F e de r a l R ul e s of C iv il P r o c e d u r e , M

ar gol is v . R y an , 140 F . 3d 850, 853 ( 9th C i r . 1998) , a nd f orthe prop erappl i ca t i on of l egal pri nci pl es the deni al of a m ot i on for aprel i m i nary in ju n c tio n , E a rth Isla n d

In st. v. U

. S. Fo rest

Serv . , 35 1 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t ed su m m ary j u d g m en tt o d efen d an t s b ecau se the e vi de nc e s how e d a tm os tadi f f e r e nc e of m e di c a l opi ni on w hi c h i s i ns uf f i c i e nt to s h o w d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e . See Sa n c h ezv . V ild , 8 9 1 F .2 d 2 4 0 , 2 4 1 - 4 2 ( 9 th C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng tha tadi f f e r e nc e of opi ni on r e ga r di ng the be s tc our s e of m edi ca l tre atm entdo es no tam ou ntt o d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence ). T he di stri ctcourt di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng B l akel y’ s unt i m el y r equestfor a dd i t i on al d is c o v e ry , o rac o n tin u a n c e to p e rm it h im to c o n d u c t d is c o v e ry , b e c au s e B la k e ly di d n otshow ho w al l ow i ng hi m addi t i on al di sc ov ery w ou l d h ave prec l ud ed s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. See M a r g o lis , 14 0 F . 3d at85 4 (up ho l di ng deni al of R ul e 56(f) di s c ove ry m ot i on w he r e “ appe l l a nt s f a i l e d t o i de nt i f

yf a c t s , e i the rdi s c ove r e d or l i kel y t o b e di sc ov er ed, thatw ou l d sup po rtthei r § 19 83 cl ai m ”) .I L/RESEARCH 3

F urther, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr w hen i tdeni ed B l akel y’ s m ot i on for a p r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n c o m p e llin g h is tr a n s p o rt to a n o u ts id e p r a c titio n e r . See E a r th I s la n d I n s t. , 351 F . 3d a t1298. B l akel y’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.