Shikeb Saddozai v. Carlos Bolanos ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHIKEB SADDOZAI, No. 20-16862
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-04047-BLF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CARLOS BOLANOS, Sheriff, County of
San Mateo; SCOTT KIRKPATRICK,
Captain; MAGUIRE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY; CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
SERVICES; LOMU, Deputy Sheriff;
COPELAND, Deputy Sheriff; SHERIFF OF
SAN MATEO COUNTY; CITY OF
REDWOOD CITY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Shikeb Saddozai appeals pro se from the district
*
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).
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to 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.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, under any
potentially applicable standard, Saddozai failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in responding
to his complaints of abdominal pain. See id. at 1057-60 (explaining that a prison
official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of
opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference); see also Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th
Cir. 2018) (setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth
Amendment inadequate medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Saddozai’s request
to extend the time for additional discovery before ruling on the motion for
summary judgment. See Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090,
1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a district court’s order denying additional
discovery is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and a party seeking a continuance
under Rule 56 “must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery
2 20-16862
would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment”).
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-16862