N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT WALTER

V. R ODENHUR ST, III, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. KAY B AUM A

N, M .D.; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-17032 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-01237-GM SM HB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2013 * * B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, TASHIM A, a nd WA RDLAW , C irc uit Judge s. Hawa ii sta

te prisone r W a lte r V. R ode nhurst, III, a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . §1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rat e indiffe re nc e , viola t ions of his right of a

c c e ss to thec o urts, a

n d sta te la w 

# FIL ED FEB 19 2013 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).c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 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), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Ro de nhurst’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt c la im s be c a use R ode nhurst fa i le 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 a c te d with de libe rate indiffe re nc e in providing m e dic a l c are for his c onditions, inc luding his pa n c re atitis a

nd hy pe rte nsion, a

nd in fa iling to provide

him with a spe c ia l die t in a

c onsiste nt m anne r. Se eJ

e tt v . Pe nne r , 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2006) (to e sta blish de libe rat e indiffe re nc e , the prisone r m ust show “ (a ) a

purpose ful a c t or fa ilure to re spond to a

prisone r’ s pa i n or possible m e d ic a l ne e d

and (b) ha

rm c a use d by the indiffe re nc e ” ); Toguc hi , 391 F.3d a t 1057-58 (ne i the r ne glige nc e nor a diffe re nc e in m e dic a l opinion is suffic ie nt to e sta blish de libe rate indiffe re nc e ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Ro de nhurst’ s a c c e ss-to-c ourts c la i m

be c a u s e R ode nhurst fa i le d to ra ise a tria ble disputea s to whe the r he suffe re d a c t

ua l injury . Se eLe w is v . C ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (a c c e ss-to-c ourts c l a im re quire s a c tua l pre judic e to c onte m

plate d or e xisting litiga tion, suc h a s ina

bility to m e e t a filing de a dline or to pre se nt a c la i m ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Ro de nhurst’ s ne glige nc e c la im s be c a

use R ode nhurst fa i le d to introduc e e xpe rt te stim ony 1 1 - 1 7 0 3 2

2de m onstra

ting tha t de fe nda nts’ a c tions fe ll be low the sta nda rd of c are . Se e Smith v . Hine s , 261 P.3d 1129, 1133 (Okla . 2011) (e xpe rt te stim ony is re quire d to e sta blish m e dic a l ne glige nc e unle ss it is re a d ily a ppa re nt to a la

y m an); Ry an v . S.F. Pe ak s Truc k ing C o., Inc . , 262 P.3d 863, 869-70 (Ariz . C t. App. 2011) (sa m e ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Ro de nhurst’ s c la im re lating to a c c e ss to his priva te phy s ic ia

n be c a use , e ve n a ssum ing tha

t se c t ion 353-13.5 of the

Ha wa ii R e vise d Statute s c re ate s a priva te right of a c tion, R ode nhurst fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine dispute a s to whe the r he c om plie d with the a dm inistra

tive re quire m e nts for ga ining suc h a c c e ss. Se e Haw. R e v. Stat. § 353- 13.5 (noting tha

t “ suc h c a re sha ll c onform

to the de pa

rtm e nt’ s rule s a

n d e sta blishe d pra c tic e s inc luding a

ny re quire m e nts c onc e rning a dva nc e notic e of visits with the prisone r” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d a s tim e -barre d R ode nhurst’ s c la im s ste m m ing from

his inc arc e ration in Ha

wa ii prior to his April 2006 tra nsfe r be c a

use R ode nhurst file d his c om

pla int m ore tha

n two y e ars a fte r e xha

usting a dm inistra

t ive re m e die s for those c la im s. Se e Haw. R e v. Stat. § 657-7 (two-y e ar sta tute of lim ita tions for pe rsona l injury

a c tions); J

o ne s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 926-27 (9th C ir. 2004) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd noting tha

t, “ for a c tions under 42 U.S.C . § 1983, c ourts a

pply the forum

sta te ’ s sta tute of lim i tations for pe rsona l 1 1 - 1 7 0 3 2 3injury

a c t ions” ); se ealso Brow

n v . Valoff

, 422 F.3d 926, 943 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ [T] he a pplic a ble sta tute of lim ita

tions m ust be tolle d while a

prisone r c om

ple te s the m andatory

e xha ustion proc e ss.” ). R ode nhurst’ s a

ppe a l of the de n ia l of his re que s t for a te m pora ry re stra ining orde r is m oot. Se eMt. Graham Red Squirre l v . Madigan , 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th C ir. 1992) (whe n unde rly ing c la im s ha ve be e n de c ide d, the re ve rsa l of a de nia l of a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion would ha

ve no pra c t ic a l c onse que n c e s, a n d the issue is the re fore m oot). R ode nhurst’ s a

rgum e nts c onc e rning de fe nda nts’ m otion to dism

iss for fa ilure to e xha

ust a re unpe rsua sive . W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 1 - 1 7 0 3 2 4