eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2013-02

Bryant Allen v. S. Roche , 510 F. App'x 502 ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                              FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              FEB 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRYANT ALLEN,                                     No. 12-16133
Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03068-JAM-
CKD
v.
S. M. ROCHE, Chief Medical Officer; T.            MEMORANDUM *
FELKER, Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before:        FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Bryant Allen, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations and pendent state law claims in connection with the medical care he
*
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).
received for his broken thumb. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Lovell v. Chandler,
    303 F.3d 1039
    , 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Allen’s pendent
state law claims because Allen failed to comply with the presentment requirements
of the California Tort Claims Act. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t,
    839 F.2d 621
    , 627 (9th Cir. 1988).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allen’s motion to
reconsider its summary judgment because Allen failed to establish any basis for
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and
setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
We do not consider issues that are not specifically and distinctly raised and
argued in the opening brief, including those relating to summary judgment on
Allen’s deliberate indifference claim. See Smith v. Marsh,
    194 F.3d 1045
    , 1052
(9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2                                    12-16133