N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ORR IS L. M ESTER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. DR . WALKER , C .M .E. at RJD; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-56512 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00064-H-NLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 18, 2017 ** B e fore : TR OTT, TASHIM A, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. M orris L. M e ste r, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from

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 se rious m e dic a l ne e ds a nd sa fe ty . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056



# FIL ED JAN 26 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(9th C ir. 2004). W e m a y a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c o rd. J

ohnson v . Riv e rside

He althc a reSy

s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use M e ste r fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts we re de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt to his serious m e dic a l ne e ds. Se e Toguc hi , 391 F.3d at 1057-60 (a

prison offic ia l a c ts with de libe rate indiffe re nc e only if he or she knows of and disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to theprisone r’ s he a l th; ne glige nc e an d a m e re diffe re nc e in m e dic a l opinion a re insuffic ie nt to e s ta

blish de l ibe rat e indiffe re nc e ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing M e ste r’ s m otions to re ope n disc ove ry

a fte r the de a dline se t forth in thepre tria l sc he duling orde r be c a use M e ste r fa ile d to de m o nstra te good c a

use . Se e J

ohnson v . Mammoth Re c re ations, Inc . , 975 F.2d 604, 607, 609-10 (9th C i r. 1992) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re v ie w a

nd “ good c a

use ” re quire m e nt to m odify a sc he duling orde r). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing M e ste r’ s re q ue st for a dditional tim e to re spond to de fe nda nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt be c a

use the d istric t c o urt gra

nte d two e xte nsions of time , a nd M e ste r fa ile d to de m onstra t e good c a use for any furthe r e xte nsions. Se e Ahanc hian v . Xe n on Pic ture s, Inc . , 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-60 (9th C ir. 2010) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w for de nia l of e xte nsion of time an d

good c a u se re quire m e nt unde r Fe d. R .C iv. P. 6(b)). 1 4 - 5 6 5 1 2 2To the e xte nt M e ste r a lle ge d tha t de fe nda nts we re de libe rate ly

indiffe re nt re ga rding thepla c e m e nt of showe r m ats, dismissa l of this c la im wa s prope r be c a use M e ste r fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nts we re de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt to his sa fe ty . Se e Farme r v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison offic ia l is de libe rat e ly indiffe re nt only if he “ knows of a nd disre ga rds a n e xc e ssive risk to inmate . . . sa fe t y ” ). W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

by the re c o rd M e ste r’ s c onte ntions tha t the distric t c ourt ne ve r re sponde d

to his motion to a

m e nd the judgm e nt on theple a dings, wa s bia s e d towa

rd him , a nd im prope rly sc re e ne d out c e rta in de fe nda nts. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 5 6 5 1 2 3