Case Name: Christopher VALLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-23
Citations: 643 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 13-16165
Parties: Christopher VALLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 643
Pages: 664–665

Head Matter:
Christopher VALLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-16165.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 23, 2016.
Christopher Valles, Chino, CA, pro se.
Jesse Manuel Rivera, Esquire, Rivera & Associates, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Christopher Valles appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference 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 Valles failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Barajas was deliber ately indifferent in treating the diabetic ulcer on Valles's toe. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate's health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We do not consider arguments, allegations, or evidence raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009); Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1988).
All outstanding motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.