EDDIE RENCHER, Jr. v. Robert B. Bannister;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDDIE RENCHER, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT B. BANNISTER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17544
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01040-MMD-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Eddie Rencher, Jr., appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
FILED
OCT 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

12-17544 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rencher
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted
with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when they provided him
with allegedly expired syringes for his insulin injections. See Jett v. Penner, 439
F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (a claim for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s
serious medical needs requires showing a purposeful act or failure to respond to
inmate’s pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference);
Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 627 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the Prison
Litigation Reform Act “requires a prior showing of physical injury that need not be
significant but must be more than de minimis”); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d
1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the requirements for establishing
supervisory liability).
The district court properly dismissed Rencher’s § 1983 claim against private
parties Scott Graham and MBI, Inc. because Rencher failed to allege facts showing
that these defendants conspired with state actors to deprive him of his rights. See
Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (a conspiracy
claim requires the existence of an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate

-- 2 of 4 --

12-17544 3
constitutional rights); Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d
1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations that a private party conspired
with a state actor to deprive plaintiff of constitutional rights are insufficient to state
a claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rencher’s motion
to file an amended complaint because the proposed amendments would have been
futile. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the
standard of review and explaining that denial of request to amend complaint
appropriate where amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rencher’s motion
for reconsideration because Rencher failed to establish grounds warranting
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rencher’s request
for further discovery because Rencher failed to show how the discovery he sought
would have precluded summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & County of San
Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review
and requirements under former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)).

-- 3 of 4 --

12-17544 4
Rencher’s contention concerning defendants’ alleged failure to provide him
with copies of his medical records is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --