Court Opinion

ID: 9557985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:21.076322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:03.326161
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 21 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MYOHO MYSTIC WINSTON, Jr.,                       No. 22-16021

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00343-JLT-EPG

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
RUSSELL K. PAUL, Doctor,

                Defendant-Appellee.

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

                            Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Myoho Mystic Winston, Jr., appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim 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 a dismissal under 28

      *
             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).
U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We

affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Winston’s action because Winston

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Paul was deliberately indifferent to

Winston’s serious medical needs by performing surgery to place a stent or, while

Winston was receiving other treatment, by declining to perform a follow-up

surgery to remove the stent after it had broken. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d

1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that 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 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).

      Winston’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                      22-16021