Ossie Giles v. California Corrections Health Care Services;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSSIE GILES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS HEALTH
CARE SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16861
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-04838-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ossie Giles, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
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.
* 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
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16861
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Giles failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately different to his severe back pain. See id. 1057-60 (a prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment,
medical malpractice, and negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition
do not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202,
1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of
and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).
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) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --