Court Opinion

ID: 9363274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:58:32.027035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:30.638430
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 16 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN H. JACKSON,                                No. 22-16109

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01442-JLT-EPG

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
N. AKABIKE,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of California
                   Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before:      WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner John H. Jackson appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to her 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.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2004), and we affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jackson

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was

deliberately indifferent in treating Jackson’s stomach issues. See id. at 1057-60

(prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard

a risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of

opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate

indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner

alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that the

delay caused significant harm).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United

States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      22-16109