Esteban Hernandez v. Howell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 22-16922
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ, No. 22-16922

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01449-MMD- CLB v.

HOWELL, warden; ARANAS, Dr.; JAMES MEMORANDUM* DZURENDA; NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SDCC; NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MICHAEL MINEV; LANDSMAN, Dr.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Esteban Hernandez appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hernandez

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent in treating Hernandez’s Hepatitis C and liver mass. See id.

at 1057-60 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of

and disregard an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice,

negligence, or difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not

amount to deliberate indifference); see also Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. &

Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013) (a supervisor may be held liable

only “if he or she was personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or a

sufficient causal connection exists between the supervisor’s unlawful conduct and

the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Hernandez’s challenge to the district court’s denial of his motion for

preliminary injunctive relief is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan,

954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided,

the reversal of a denial of preliminary injunction would have no practical

consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s

2 22-16922 discovery motions. See Quinn v. Anvil Corp., 620 F.3d 1005, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010)

(setting forth standard of review); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.

2002) (discovery rulings “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing

that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the

complaining litigant” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

3 22-16922