Lawrence Redding v. J. Dhaliwal , 635 F. App'x 384 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER No. 14-35009
REDDING,
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00998-PK
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
J. DHALIWAL; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Lawrence Christopher Redding appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
*
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).
alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and retaliation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Doe v. Abbott
Labs, 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We may affirm on any basis supported
by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Redding’s
deliberate indifference claim against defendants Dhaliwal and Davis because
Redding failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether those
defendants delayed or denied Redding appropriate medical treatment. See Toguchi
v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004) (to be deliberately indifferent,
treatment must be medically unacceptable under the circumstances and chosen in
conscious disregard of an excessive risk to a prisoner’s health); Hutchinson v.
United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988) (negligence in diagnosing a
medical condition, without more, does not constituted deliberate indifference).
Summary judgment was proper on Redding’s retaliation claims against
defendants Dhaliwal and Tovar because Redding failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether their actions did not advance a legitimate correctional
goal. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth
elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
2 14-35009
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Redding’s
retaliation claim against defendant Jacquez because Redding failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Jacquez took an adverse action
against him. See id.
We reject as unsupported by the record Redding’s contentions that the
district court failed to consider his retaliation claims against defendants Keene and
Zimmerman, and that the district court failed to consider his evidence and
pleadings.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35009