Thomas Webster v. Natalie Haskins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 3, 2023
• Docket: 22-15545
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS WEBSTER, No. 22-15545

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01640-BAM

v. MEMORANDUM* NATALIE HASKINS, Director, Haskins House State Wide Transitional Re-Entry Program,

Defendant-Appellee,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 3, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Thomas Webster, a civil detainee of the California Department of State

Hospitals, appeals pro se from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Natalie Haskins alleging constitutionally

* 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). inadequate medical care. We affirm.

To show a constitutional violation, Webster must demonstrate that Haskins

acted with “objective deliberate indifference.” Gordon v. County of Orange, 888

F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018). Webster contends that Haskins’s actions

resulted in a delay in the delivery of his pramipexole prescription for restless leg

syndrome and sleep aid, thus causing him injury. The district court properly

granted summary judgment to Haskins because Webster failed to establish that

Haskins acted with deliberate indifference or that his injury was a reasonably

foreseeable result of any delay in the receipt of this prescription. Russell v.

Lumitap, 31 F.4th 729, 739 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining the objective deliberate

indifference standard).

Following the district court’s screening of his complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Webster elected to proceed only against Haskins for alleged

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for inadequate medical care, and he

voluntarily dismissed all other defendants and all other claims. Accordingly, we

decline to consider Webster’s waived claims against other persons concerning

other conditions of his confinement. Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 928

(9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (dismissed claims that are not repled are waived).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Webster’s motion

to appoint an expert witness on his behalf because Webster must bear his own

2 witness and discovery costs. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211-12 (9th Cir.

1989) (expenditure of public funds on indigent litigants’ discovery fees not

authorized by Congress).

Webster’s motion for leave to declare fraud on the court and relief from

judgment is denied.

AFFIRMED.