Ronnie Martin v. Morris , 586 F. App'x 358 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONNIE S. MARTIN, No. 13-56672
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05232-PSG-PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MORRIS, Dr., Individually; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ronnie S. Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth
Amendment claim challenging the conditions of his confinement. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for
*
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).
summary judgment. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013).
We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.,
575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Summary judgment for defendants was proper because Martin failed to raise
a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately
indifferent in refusing to prescribe special soap and lotion. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 832, 837 (1994) (a prison official is not liable under the Eighth
Amendment for depriving an inmate “humane conditions of confinement” unless
he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”).
We reject Martin’s contention that the district court should have stricken
Barnett’s Declaration.
Martin’s motion to expand the record on appeal and request for judicial
notice, filed on October 3, 2013, are denied as unnecessary.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-56672