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 by9th 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). 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 E DWAR DO DE S AN T I AG O, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. OH , MD; L . MAR QU E Z , RN, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 56684 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 8 8 2 - B T MWMC 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia B a rryT . M os kow i t z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t14, 2013 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , G R A B E R , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rE dw a r do D e s a nt i a go appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te i n d i f f e r e n c e t o h i s s e r i o u s me d i c a l n e e d s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, T oguc hiv . Chung , 391 F . 3d



# FI LED AU G 21 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 56684 2 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n df o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to c o m p le te s e rv ic e in atim e lym a n n e r , O y am a v . She e han (

I n r e She e han) , 253 F . 3d 5 0 7 , 5 1 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( d i s mi s s a l u n d e rFe d . R. Ci v . P. 4 ( m) ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e ntf orde f e nda nt M a r q u e z b e c au s e D e s a n tia g o f a ile dto r a is e ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rM a r q u e z a c te dw ith d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to as e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e din h e rtr e a tm e n t o f

D e s a n tia g o ’s e x c e s s e a rw a x . See Je t t v. P enner , 439 F . 3d 1091, 1096 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( s e tt i ng f orth t e s tf

or“ de l i be r a t e i ndi f

f e r e nc e t o as e r i ous m edi ca l need” und erthe E i gh th A m endm ent ). T o the e xt e nttha tD e s a nt i a go c ha l l e nge s the de ni a l of hi s m ot i on f

or ap p o in tm e n t o f

am e d ic a l e x p e rt f

o rap h y s ic a l e x a m in a tio n , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on because D es ant i ago fai l ed t o sho w thatappo i ntm entof a m e d ic a l e x p e rt w a s n e c e s s a ry . See W a lker v. A m . H

o m e Sh i eld

L o n gT erm D is abi l i t yP lan , 180 F . 3d 1065, 1071 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( s e tt i ng f orth s t a nda r d of re vi ew and n ot i ng thatdi stri ctcourthas di sc re t i on w hether t o app oi ntan expert un der F ed. R . E vi d. 70 6(a) ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i dn o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n i n d ecl i n i n g t o ex erci se sup p l em en t al j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er D esan t i ag o ’ s m ed i cal n eg l i g en ce cl ai m ag ai n st d e f e n d a n t M a r q u e z . Se e Ca rn eg ie -Me llo n U n iv . v . C o h ill , 484 U . S . 343, 350 n. 7,11- 56684 3 (198 8) (“ [I ] n the usual ca se i n w hi ch al l fe dera l -l aw cl ai m s are el i m i nat ed before tr ia l, th e b a la n c e o f

f a c to r s to b e c o n s id e r e d. . . w ill p o in t to w a r dd e c lin in g to e x e r c is e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e r e m a in in g s ta te - la w c la im s .” ) ; T r i tc hle rv . C ount

yof L ake , 35 8 F . 3d 11 50 , 11 53 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( re vi ew i ng for an abu se of di sc re t i on ). T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d ism issin g D es an ti ag o ’s c la im s a g a in s t d e f

e n d a n t O h f

o rf a ilu r e to e f

f e c t tim e lys e rv ic e u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le of C i vi l P r oc e dur e 4( m ) be c aus e D e s a nt i a go f a i l e d t o s how good c aus e a s t o w hy he di d notpr ovi de the U . S . M a r s ha l s S e rvi c e w i th s uf f i c i e nti nf orm a t i on t o s e rve O h f o ro v e ro n e y e a r , d e s p ite h a v in g b e e n w arn e do f h is du tyto d o s o . See Fe d . R. C iv . P . 4 ( m ) ( r e q u ir in g s e rv ic e w ith in 1 2 0 d a y s o f f ilin g th e c o m p la in t) ; In re She e han , 25 3 F . 3d 51 2-13 (e xp l ai ni ng the go od cause s t andard and the di stri ct court ’ s broad di sc re t i on t o ext end t i m e f or se rvi ce or di sm i ss w i tho utprej ud i ce ); W alke r v . Su m ner , 1 4 F . 3 d1 4 1 5 , 1 4 2 2 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) (an i n carcerated p ro se pl a i nt i f f pr oc e e di ng i n f

orm apaupe r i s m us tpr ovi de the m a r s ha l w i th s uf f i c i e nt in f o rm a tio n n e c e s s a ryf

o rs e rv ic e ) , a b r o g a te d

in p a r t o n o th e rg r o u n d s b ySa n d in v. C on ner , 51 5 U . S . 47 2 (19 95 ). AF F I RME D.