Court Opinion

ID: 4257924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-23 20:01:38.183408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:02:48.569552
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 23 2018
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSSIE GILES,                                    No. 17-16861

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:15-cv-04838-YGR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS HEALTH
CARE SERVICES; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before:      LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Ossie Giles, a California state prisoner, 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.

§ 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). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Giles failed

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

deliberately different to his severe back pain. See id. 1057-60 (a prison official is

deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk

to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment,

medical malpractice, and negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition

do not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,

1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of

and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or 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) (“Documents or facts not

presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                      17-16861