Gustavo Estrada v. Douglas Gillespie , 671 F. App'x 646 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO C. ESTRADA, No. 15-17242
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00280-APG-
PAL
v.
DOUGLAS GILLESPIE; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Gustavo C. Estrada appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Munoz
because Estrada failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendant Munoz knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Estrada’s safety.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-38 (1994).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Estrada’s motion
for reconsideration because the evidence Estrada submitted was not newly
discovered. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208,
211-12 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting forth standard of review and noting that evidence is
not newly discovered if it could have been discovered earlier with reasonable
diligence).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly argued in the
opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-17242