Case Name: Irving C. HUMPHREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-17
Citations: 486 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 11-17844
Parties: Irving C. HUMPHREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 486
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
Irving C. HUMPHREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-17844.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 17, 2012.
Irving Charles Humphrey, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, AGCA, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Irving C. Humphrey, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indiffer ence to his serious medical needs in connection with his exposure to valley fever. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 891 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Yates because Humphrey failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Yates personally participated in any alleged constitutional violations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a plaintiff must plead that each defendant violated the Constitution through his own individual actions); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (supervisor is liable for constitutional violations of subordinates only if he "participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them"); see also Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Humphrey's request to appoint an independent medical expert because Humphrey failed to show that it was necessary. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.1999) (setting forth standard of review and noting that district court has discretion whether to appoint an expert under Fed.R.Evid. 706(a)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.