Case Name: Jack L. MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-19
Citations: 404 F. App'x 126
Docket Number: No. 09-17835
Parties: Jack L. MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
Jack L. MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe McGRATH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-17835.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
Filed Nov. 19, 2010.
Jack L. Morris, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
William Chi-Shing Kwong, Dept, of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Jack L. Morris appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion the district court's order denying a motion to compel discovery, Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060 ("Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment."); Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th Cir.2002) ("[A] reasonable prison official understanding that he cannot recklessly disregard a substantial risk of serious harm, could know all of the facts yet mistakenly, but reasonably, perceive that the exposure in any given situation was not that high. In these cir cumstances, he would be entitled to qualified immunity.").
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Morris's motions to compel discovery and responses to his subpoenas. See Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751 (trial court's broad discretion "will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.