Cano v. Schriro

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for prison officials in Erineo Cano’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs related to Hepatitis C. The court also upheld denials of Cano’s requests for a continuance, leave to amend, appointed counsel, and an appointed expert, and declined to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was proper because Cano's conclusory allegations of inadequate medical treatment did not controvert evidence that his condition was appropriately monitored and that additional testing and treatment were administered as warranted; he therefore failed to raise a triable issue regarding deliberate indifference.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cano's request for a continuance because he failed to show that additional discovery would reveal specific facts precluding summary judgment.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cano's untimely request to amend because he failed to demonstrate good cause.
4. The district court properly denied Cano's motion for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
5. The district court properly denied Cano's motion for appointment of an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 706 because the action did not involve technical evidence or complex issues.
6. The court declined to consider Cano's challenge to the validity of prior strikes because he raised the issue for the first time on appeal and did not establish an applicable exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Cano's Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim concerning treatment for Hepatitis C.
2. Whether the district court improperly denied Cano's request for a continuance to conduct additional discovery.
3. Whether the district court improperly denied Cano's untimely motion to amend the complaint.
4. Whether the district court improperly denied Cano's motions for appointment of counsel and an expert.
5. Whether the Ninth Circuit should review Cano's challenge to prior strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 when the issue was raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed