Francisco Gonzalez v. D. Runnels , 451 F. App'x 664 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 03 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, No. 10-17379
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02303-MHP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
D. L. RUNNELS, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Francisco Gonzalez 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.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gonzalez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official
acts with deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive
risk to an inmate’s health and safety, and a difference of opinion about the best
course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). The
district court also properly entered summary judgment for the nonappearing
defendant Clark. See Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44
F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming summary judgment for nonappearing
defendant where plaintiffs, in response to summary judgment motion filed by
appearing defendant, had “a full and fair opportunity to brief and present evidence”
as to claims against nonappearing defendant).
We do not consider issues not adequately raised and argued in the opening
brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Gonzalez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
To the extent that Gonzalez seeks to amend the docket to list Rick Marino as
an appellee, that request is granted.
2 10-17379
All remaining pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-17379