Anant Kumar Tripati v. Corizon Incorporated

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANANT KUMAR TRIPATI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CORIZON INCORPORATED; GLEN
BABICH, Provider East Unit; CHARLES
L. RYAN; GEORGE OSLER, Mailroom
Officer Florence; DANIEL MORENO,
Mailroom Officer Florence; JOSE
RAMOS, Mailroom Officer Florence;
GLENN SCHLETTER, Mailroom Officer
Florence; DAVID SHINN, Director;
EDWARD SHUMAN, Deputy Warden;
DIANE BOHUSZEWICZ, Florence
Employee; ZEBARIAH YOUNG,
Florence Employee; CENTURION OF
ARIZONA LLC,
Defendants-Appellees,
v.
ARIZONA BOARD OF NURSING;
ARIZONA MEDICAL BOARD,
Movants-Appellees.
No. 21-15902
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00066-RM
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
AUG 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2023**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Anant Tripati appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment in
favor of the defendants in his consolidated prisoner civil rights actions. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jett v. Penner, 439
F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006), and affirm.
Summary judgment was proper for the defendants on the claims alleging
deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s hypertension, pain, and lung problems. At
most, plaintiff established a difference of opinion between himself and the medical
professionals regarding the proper treatment of his medical conditions. Such a
difference of opinion does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242
(9th Cir. 1989).
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

Summary judgment was proper for the defendants on the unexhausted
claims. Plaintiff failed to offer admissible evidence to establish that the
administrative remedies for his unexhausted claims were “effectively unavailable”
to him. See Eaton v. Blewett, 50 F.4th 1240, 1245 (9th Cir. 2022) (setting forth the
standard) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff waived his First Amendment mail claim in his opening brief by not
specifically addressing the reasons given by the district court for granting summary
judgment. See Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Center, 849 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2017)
(holding that “matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and
argued in appellant’s opening brief” are waived) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Summary judgment was proper for the defendants on the access to the
courts claim because plaintiff failed to link the contents of the opened envelopes to
any specific nonfrivolous legal claim. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403,
413-16 (2002) (setting forth the standard for an access to the courts claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it limited discovery to the
claims alleged in the case. Plaintiff has not established that he was prejudiced by
the denial of any specific, relevant discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d
732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth the standard of review and holding that a
3

-- 3 of 4 --

plaintiff must make the “clearest showing” of “actual and substantial prejudice”
from the denial of discovery) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We decline to consider issues that were raised for the first time in the
opening brief. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding that arguments “raised for the first time on appeal” have been waived).
This case remains administratively closed for defendant Corizon.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --