Steven Vlasich v. Jesus Juarez;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN VLASICH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JESUS JUAREZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15974
D.C. No. 1:05-cv-01615-LJO-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Steven Vlasich appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-15974 2
§ 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 Vlasich
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in discontinuing his Ritalin
medication. See id. at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if
they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of
opinion concerning the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference absent a showing that the course of treatment prescribed
was medically unacceptable).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vlasich’s motion to
compel Dr. Fishback to produce copies of Vlasich’s letters because there was no
showing that the denial of the motion resulted in actual and substantial prejudice.
See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court’s “broad
discretion . . . to permit or deny discovery . . . will not be disturbed except upon the
clearest showing that denial of discovery results in actual and substantial
prejudice” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-15974 3
We reject Vlasich’s contention that the district court erred by denying his
motion for copies and granting him leave to file only one copy of his opposition
without proof of service.
We do not consider on appeal materials that were not before the district
court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --