Anthony Ramirez v. Ron Davis ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 18 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ANTHONY MARCO RAMIREZ,                          No. 21-16044
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:19-cv-03315-JSW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    RON DAVIS, Warden, San Quentin; ANDY
    CRUMP, Chief Plant Manager,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 12, 2022**
    Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
    Former California state prisoner Anthony Marco Ramirez appeals pro se
    from the district court’s summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging
    deliberate indifference to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1056
    *
    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).
    (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ramirez
    failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
    deliberately indifferent by failing to inspect and maintain the prison’s cooling
    tower. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837 (1994) (a prison official is
    deliberately indifferent only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
    inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the
    inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must
    also draw the inference”).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ramirez’s request
    for leave to file a sur-reply because it reviewed the briefing and found that there
    were no new issues raised by defendants’ reply brief that necessitated more
    argument. See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Seaboard Corp., 
    677 F.2d 1301
    , 1314
    (9th Cir. 1982) (setting forth standard of review).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    21-16044
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-16044

Filed Date: 7/18/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/18/2022