David Gene Lancaster v. AUNG, Dr.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DAVID GENE LANCASTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AUNG, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16109
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03230-MMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Gene Lancaster 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
FILED
JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-16109 2
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 Lancaster
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in their treatment of his Valley Fever-related meningitis.
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 Lancaster’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).
Lancaster’s argument regarding defendants’ failure to produce documents in
response to his discovery requests is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --