Maximo Berreondo v. JONATHAN AKANNO, Prison Doctor, Kern Valley State Prison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAXIMO BERREONDO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JONATHAN AKANNO, Prison Doctor,
Kern Valley State Prison,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-15583
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00432-LJO-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Maximo Berreondo, 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
FILED
NOV 27 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 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Berreondo
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Akanno
was deliberately indifferent to his pressure sores. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she
“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”); Toguchi, 391 F.3d
at 1057-60 (neither a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor
negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate
indifference); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a plaintiff
“must show that the course of treatment the doctor[] chose was medically
unacceptable under the circumstances”).
We reject Berreondo’s unsupported contention that the district court did not
consider the evidence Berreondo submitted in his objections to the magistrate
judge’s findings and recommendations.
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) (per curiam).
Berreondo’s request to be put on permanent “PLU” status, filed on
14-15583 2

-- 2 of 3 --

September 17, 2014, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-15583 3

-- 3 of 3 --