Thomas Webster v. NATALIE HASKINS, Director, Haskins House State Wide Transitional Re-Entry Program

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS WEBSTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATALIE HASKINS, Director, Haskins
House State Wide Transitional Re-Entry
Program,
Defendant-Appellee,
No. 22-15545
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01640-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
NOV 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

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 of 3 --

3
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.

-- 3 of 3 --