Court Opinion

ID: 9450936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:01:14.764735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:28.769916
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 4 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEE SWAFFORD, AKA Swafford Lee,                 No. 22-16498

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00721-DAD-AC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JASON ROHRER,

                Defendant-Appellee,

and

R. NEUSHMID, Warden; T. WAMBLE;
OLLER, R.N.; BUCKER, C.O.; JOHNSON,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Lee Swafford appeals pro se from the district

      *
             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).
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. Cortez v. Skol, 776 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2015).

We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Swafford

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

deliberately indifferent to Swafford’s serious medical needs by denying Swafford’s

requests for a lower bunk accommodation. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard”

requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard 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 and allegations raised for the first time on

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

      We treat Swafford’s motion (Docket Entry No. 22) as a motion to file a

supplemental brief and grant the motion. The Clerk will file the brief submitted at

Docket Entry No. 16.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    22-16498