Case Name: Steven Dean PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. McEVOY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 621 F. App'x 390
Docket Number: No. 15-15334
Parties: Steven Dean PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. McEVOY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 621
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
Steven Dean PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. McEVOY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-15334.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 22, 2015.
Steven Dean Parks, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Michael James' Quinn, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, 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
Steven Dean Parks, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Parks's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety claim because Parks failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Parks's safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a claim for deliberate indifference requires that' the official "knows of and disregards an excessive .risk to inmate . safety"); see also Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 (9th Cir.1995) (explaining that a verified complaint only functions as an opposing affidavit where it is "based on personal knowledge and set[s] forth specific facts admissible in evidence").
We reject Parks's contentions that the district court violated his due process rights by considering the rules violation report, and violated his right to discovery.
We do not consider Parks's allegations regarding a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim, which was raised for the first time on appeal, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam), nor do we consider any "[d]ocüments or facts [that were] not presented to the district court." United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990).
Parks's motions for entry of default, filed on August 13, 2015 and August 14, 2015, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3 .