Bruce Haney v. S. Htay ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE PATRICK HANEY, No. 17-17461
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00310-AWI-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
S. HTAY, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Patrick Haney, a California state prisoner, 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 review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (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).
2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We
may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1126 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
Dismissal of Haney’s action was proper because Haney failed to allege facts
sufficient to show that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk of
harm to his health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004)
(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).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Haney’s contention that the district
court failed to consider the exhibits attached to the complaint.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-17461