Danny Fabricant v. J. T. SHARTLE, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANNY FABRICANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. T. SHARTLE, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-17339
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00366-JAS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
* 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
MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-17339
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192
(9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
Fabricant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant
was deliberately indifferent to Fabricant’s bruxism. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate
indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the
prisoner’s health; a mere difference in medical opinion or negligence is insufficient
to establish deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fabricant’s motions
to conduct discovery because Fabricant failed to show that he was actually and
substantially prejudiced. See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1084,
1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review; noting that a district court’s
denial of discovery “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the
denial . . . results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant”).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --