Steven Dean Parks v. E. McEVOY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN DEAN PARKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E. McEVOY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-15334
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05094-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Steven Dean Parks, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th
FILED
OCT 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Parks’s Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference to safety claim because Parks failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant knew of and disregarded
an excessive risk to Parks’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994) (a claim for deliberate indifference requires that the official “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”); see also Schroeder v.
McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that a verified complaint
only functions as an opposing affidavit where it is “based on personal knowledge
and set[s] forth specific facts admissible in evidence”).
We reject Parks’s contentions that the district court violated his due process
rights by considering the rules violation report, and violated his right to discovery.
We do not consider Parks’s allegations regarding a deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs claim, which was raised for the first time on appeal, see
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), nor do we
consider any “[d]ocuments or facts [that were] not presented to the district court.”
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Parks’s motions for entry of default, filed on August 13, 2015 and August
15-15334 2

-- 2 of 3 --

14, 2015, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
15-15334 3

-- 3 of 3 --