Carl Lee Callegari v. Charles D. Lee, M.d.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CARL LEE CALLEGARI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES D. LEE, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17945
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02420-MMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Carl Lee Callegari appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to
FILED
JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17945 2
provide him with adequate treatment for hepatitis. 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 Callegari
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in their treatment of his hepatitis. See id. at 1058 (prison
officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an
excessive risk to inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the
appropriate course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Callegari’s motion
to compel discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
(setting forth standard of review and describing trial court’s broad discretion to
deny discovery).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by entertaining defendants’
successive motion for summary judgment. See Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d
908, 911-12 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and describing trial
court’s broad discretion to permit successive motions for summary judgment).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --