Court Opinion

ID: 4021972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-08-04 20:01:02.41111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:01.293450
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 04 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARRIEM B. SHAHEED,                              No.      15-16432

               Plaintiff-Appellant,              D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05751-VC

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES, San
Quentin; et al.,

               Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                     Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted July 26, 2016**

Before:        SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Karriem B. Shaheed 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.

          *
             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).
§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

2004), and we affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shaheed

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his ankle injury. See id. at 1058, 1060 (deliberate

indifference is a high legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a

difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to

deliberate indifference).

       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).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                      15-16432