Anthony Marco Ramirez v. RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin; ANDY CRUMP, Chief Plant Manager

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY MARCO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin; ANDY
CRUMP, Chief Plant Manager,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16044
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-03315-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Anthony Marco Ramirez appeals pro se
from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056
* 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).
FILED
JUL 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16044
(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ramirez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent by failing to inspect and maintain the prison’s cooling
tower. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must
also draw the inference”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ramirez’s request
for leave to file a sur-reply because it reviewed the briefing and found that there
were no new issues raised by defendants’ reply brief that necessitated more
argument. See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1314
(9th Cir. 1982) (setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --