Rodolfo C. Anderson v. Talisman, Dr.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the**
Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO C. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TALISMAN, DR.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-16911
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00715-ALA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 13, 2010***
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16911 2
California state prisoner Rodolfo C. Anderson appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a
prison medical official forced him to take antipsychotic medications against his
will. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Anderson
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the prison doctor
violated his constitutional rights by involuntarily medicating him. See Washington
v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 231-33 (1990); Kulas v. Valdez, 159 F.3d 453, 456 (9th
Cir. 1998).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith
v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Anderson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --