William Watson v. PGERTZ, Administrative Director of Nursing

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM WATSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
P GERTZ, Administrative Director of
Nursing; NATALYA WEIGEL, Health Care
Provider/Doctor, previously named Natalie
Weigel, aka per Doc 16 also known as
Natalie Weigel; MAUREEN GAY, Health
Care Provider/Doctor; ANGEL
MERRIMAN, Health Care Provider/Doctor,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15450
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00072-DLR-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner William Watson 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).
FILED
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15450
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.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Watson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Weigel was
deliberately indifferent in treating Watson’s hernia. See id. at 1057-60 (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 arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Watson’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief (Docket Entry
No. 24) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --