N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANANT KUM AR

TRIPATI, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OR IZON INC ORPOR

ATED; GLEN B AB IC H, Provide r Ea st Unit; C HARLES L. R YAN; GEOR G E OSLER , M a ilroom Offic e r Flore nc e ; DANIEL M ORENO, M a ilroom Offic e r Flore nc e ; JOSE R AM OS, M a ilroom

Offic e r Flore nc e ; GLENN SC HLETTER , M a ilroom Offic e r Flore nc e ; DAVID SHINN, Dire c tor; EDWARD SHUM AN, De puty W arde n; DIANE B OHUSZEW IC Z , Flore n c e Em ploy e e ; ZEB AR IAH YOUNG, Flore nc e Em

ploy e e ; C ENTURION OF AR IZONA LLC ,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s,
v. AR IZONA B O ARD OF NUR SING; AR IZONA M EDIC AL B OARD,

M ova nts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-15902 D.C . No. 4:18-c v-00066-R M
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# F IL ED

AUG 23 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ose m ary M árque z , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 23, 2023 **
B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, a nd SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff Ana

nt Tripa ti a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s e ntry

of judgm e nt in favor of the de fe nda

nts in his c onsolida

te d prisone r c ivil rights ac tions. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, J e tt v
. Pe nne r , 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2006), a n d a ffirm
. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r for the de fe n da nts on thec la im s a l le ging de libe rat e indiffe re nc e to pla i ntiff’ s hy pe rte nsion, pa in, a

nd lung problem s . At
m ost, pla intiff e sta

blishe d a diffe re nc e of opinion be twe e n him se l f and the m e dic a l profe s siona ls re ga

rding theprope r tre atm e nt of his m e dic a l c onditions. Such a diffe re nc e of opinion doe s not rise to the le v e l of de libe rate indiffe re nc e . Toguc h i
v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th C ir. 2004); Sanc he z v . Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th C ir. 1989).

* * 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2Sum

m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r for the de fe n da nts on theune xha

uste d
c la im s. Pla intiff fa ile d to offe r a dm issible e vide nc e to e s ta blish tha t the
a dm inistra

tive re m e die s for his une xha uste d c la i m s we re “ e ffe c tive ly una va ila ble ” to him
. Se e Eaton v . Ble w e t t , 50 F.4th 1240, 1245 (9th C ir. 2022) (se tting forth the sta nda rd) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d ). Pla intiff wa ive d his First Ame ndm e nt m a il c la im in his opening brie f by

not spe c ific a lly

a ddre ssing there a sons give n by the distric t c o urt for gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e Hay e

s v . Idaho C

orr. C e nte r , 849 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th C ir. 2017) (holding tha

t “ m atte rs on a

ppe a l tha t a re not spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

ra ise d a nd
argue d in a ppe lla nt’ s ope n ing brie f” are wa ive d) (inte rna l quota tion m arks
om i tte d). Sum

m ary judgm e nt wa s prope r for the de fe nda nts on thea c c e ss to the
c ourts c la im

be c a u s e pla intiff fa ile d to link the c onte nts of theope ne d e nve lope s to
any spe c ific nonfrivolous le ga l c la i m . Se e C hristophe r v . Harbury , 536 U.S. 403, 413-16 (2002) (se tting forth the sta nda rd for a n a c c e ss to the c ourts c la im ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it limite d disc ove ry to the
c la im s a lle ge d in thec a se . Pla intiff ha s not e sta blishe d tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by the d e nia l of a

ny spe c ific , re le va

nt disc o ve ry . Se e Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (se tting forth the sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd holding tha

t a

3pla i ntiff m

ust m a ke the “ c le are s t showing”of “ a c tua l a n d substa ntia l pre judic e ” from the de nia l of disc ove ry ) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). W e de c l ine to c onside r issue s tha t we re ra ise d for the first tim e in the ope ning brie f. Se e Hillis v . He ine m an , 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha

t a rgum e nts “ ra ise d

for the first tim e on a

ppe a l” have be e n wa i ve d). This c a se re m a ins a dm inistra t ive l y c lose d for de fe nda

nt C oriz on. AFFIRM E D.

4