deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction 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. Fenner, 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>); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
holding that to demonstrate retaliation complainedof action must be more than de minimis  holding that common law fraud requires a showing that the plaintiff suffered injury 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  holding that prejudice requires that the difference in sentencing be significant recognizing availability of nominal damages for violations of constitutional rights notwithstanding statutory bar in prison litigation  reform act 42 usc  1997ee