Christopher Valles v. M. Barajas , 643 F. App'x 664 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER VALLES, No. 13-16165
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01888-LJO-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
M. BARAJAS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Christopher Valles 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 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).
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valles failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Barajas was
deliberately indifferent in treating the diabetic ulcer on Valles’s toe. See id. at
1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice,
negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not
amount to deliberate indifference).
We do not consider arguments, allegations, or evidence raised for the first
time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009);
Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).
All outstanding motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16165