Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela v. Melissa Beal; Tammy Taylor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MELISSA BEAL; TAMMY TAYLOR,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16199
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00631-NVW-
MHB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela 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. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065
* 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).
FILED
JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-16199
(9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Beal and
Taylor were deliberately indifferent to her complaints of heart and chest pain. See
id. at 1066-68 (an official is deliberately indifferent if she “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”; a difference of opinion
between a physician and the prisoner concerning what medical care is appropriate
does not amount to deliberate indifference (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
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).
Valenzuela’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 14 and
16) are granted.
Valenzuela’s “motion to submit” (Docket Entry No. 20) is denied as moot.
The court granted Valenzuela in forma pauperis status and she completed the
prisoner authorization form (Docket Entry Nos. 8 and 13).
Valenzuela’s motion to seal her medical records attached to defendants’
excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied as unnecessary because the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-16199
excerpts of record containing her medical records are sealed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --