N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AM A DEO SANC HEZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. RENEE B AKER , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16925 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00310-LRHW GC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Am a de o Sanc he z , a

Ne va da sta te prisone r, a

p pe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his sa fe ty . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e



# FIL ED JAN 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a ffirm .

The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Sanc he z fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r B ake r kne w of a nd disre ga rde d a n e x c e ssive risk to Sa

nc he z ’ s sa fe ty . Se eFarme r v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a

prison offic i a l is de libe rat e ly indiffe re nt only if he or she

“ knows of a

n d disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to inmate . . . sa fe t y ; the offic i a l m

ust both beaware of fa c ts from whic h the infe re nc e c ould be draw n tha t a substa ntia l risk of se rious ha

rm e xists, a nd he m ust a lso dra

w the infe re nc e ” ); Be rg v . K inc he loe , 794 F.2d 457, 460 (9th C ir. 1986) (sum m ary judgm e nt wa s prope r whe re pla intiff ha d not provide d e vide nc e de m onstra ting tha t de fe nda nts “ ha d a ny re a s on to be l ie ve ” tha

t pla intiff would be

atta c ke d). To the e xte nt tha

t Sa n c he z ’ s a c tion c ha lle nge s prior pa role suita bility de c isions or would othe

rwise ne c e ssa

rily de m onstra

t e the inva lidity

of the duration of his c onfine m e nt, it is ba rre d by He c k v . Humphre

y , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Se e Butte rfie ld v . Bail , 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th C ir. 1997) ( He c k ba rs prisone r’ s § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t “ de fe nda nts viola te d his dueproc e ss rights by c onside ring fa l se inform at ion in his prison file to find him

ine ligible for pa

role ” ). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or doc um e nts pre se nte d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e 1 2 - 1 6 9 2 5 2Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ); Unite d State s v . Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th C i r. 1990) (“ Doc um e nts or fa c ts not pre s e nte d to the distric t c ourt a re not pa rt of the re c ord on a

ppe a l.” ). W e re je c t Sa nc he z ’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning disc ove ry be c a use the re c ord shows tha t the distric t c ourt orde re d B a ke r to re s pond to Sa

nc h e z ’ s disc ove ry be fore it gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd the re c ord doe s not show tha t the re sponse s we re ina de q

uate . AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 6 9 2 5 3