United States v. 2020-06-11 | 19-16781 | CARDELL GAUFF V. JOHN PERKINS | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARDELL GAUFF,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN PERKINS, Facility Health
Administrator; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16781

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04492-DGC-
ESW

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Cardell Gauff appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing 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

*
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

JUN 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16781
review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gauff’s action because Gauff failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Gauff’s Hepatitis C diagnosis. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th
Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,
633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of a constitutional right, . . .
[under § 1983 ], if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative
acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” (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).
Gauff’s pending motion is denied.
AFFIRMED.