Case Name: Rodolfo C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TALISMAN, Dr., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-05
Citations: 398 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 09-16911
Parties: Rodolfo C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TALISMAN, Dr., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 291–291

Head Matter:
Rodolfo C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TALISMAN, Dr., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-16911.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 5, 2010.
Rodolfo C. Anderson, Delano, CA, pro se.
William Douglas, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Rodolfo C. Anderson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a prison medical official forced him to take antipsychotic medications against his will. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124,1128 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Anderson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the prison doctor violated his constitutional rights by involuntarily medicating him. See Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 231-33, 110 S.Ct. 1028, 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990); Rulas v. Valdez, 159 F.3d 453, 456 (9th Cir.1998).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).
Anderson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.