eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2016-09

James Ellsworth v. Prison Health Services Incorpo , 668 F. App'x 822 ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                             FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 19 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES JACKSON ELLSWORTH,                         No.   14-15905
Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 3:11-cv-08070-JAJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PRISON HEALTH SERVICES
INCORPORATED, Prison health
providers at Mohave County Detention
Center; KIRSTEN MORTENSEN, Dr.,
Mohave County Detention Center,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 15, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
James Jackson Ellsworth, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against
defendants Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS) and Dr. Kirsten Mortensen, alleging
that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary
and case management rulings. R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa.,
    673 F.3d 1240
    ,
1245 (9th Cir. 2012); GCB Commc’ns, Inc. v. U.S. S. Commc’ns, Inc.,
    650 F.3d 1257
    ,
1262 (9th Cir. 2011). We review de novo its legal rulings. Summers v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc.,
    508 F.3d 923
    , 926 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting PHS’s motion for a
protective order, to strike sensitive documents attached to one of Ellsworth’s public
filings, and to require Ellsworth to return the documents. R & R Sails,
    Inc., 673 F.3d at 1245
    . Ellsworth failed to give prior notice to the defendants that he was serving a
subpoena on a third party, and PHS could claim a personal interest in the disclosed
documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 45.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to serve subpoenas
for records on three non-parties because Ellsworth was able to obtain the requested
documents through other means. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by declining to serve subpoenas to testify on three witnesses. All three witnesses were
precluded from testifying in the desired manner at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 602, 706.
2
Although the district court denied Ellworth’s motion as untimely rather than as moot,
“the decision of the district court may be affirmed ‘even if the district court relied on
the wrong grounds or wrong reasoning.’” Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,
    738 F.3d 214
    , 219 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris
Pictures Corp.,
    159 F.3d 412
    , 418 (9th Cir. 1998)). The district court also did not
abuse its discretion with respect to evidentiary rulings at trial. Instead, the trial record
shows that Ellsworth was able to examine witnesses thoroughly and present evidence
to the jury.
Finally, the district court did not err by granting PHS’s motion for judgment as
a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. Based on the evidence
presented at trial, a reasonable jury would not have had a legally sufficient evidentiary
basis to find for Ellsworth and against PHS.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); Tsao v. Desert
Palace, Inc.,
    698 F.3d 1128
    , 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
1
Ellsworth engaged in extensive pre-trial discovery. We therefore do not
reach any questions about the scope of an indigent defendant’s constitutional right
to pre-trial discovery.
3