Mitchell Varnell v. Kenneth Sawyer ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 5 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MITCHELL LEE VARNELL,                           No.    18-35771
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05443-BHS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    KENNETH SAWYER; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 2, 2020**
    Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Mitchell Lee Varnell, a Washington state prisoner, 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. § 1291
    . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1056 (9th
    *
    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).
    Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Varnell
    failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
    deliberately indifferent to Varnell’s serious medical needs regarding his back. See
    
    id. at 1057-60
     (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 Hallett v. Morgan, 
    296 F.3d 732
    , 746
    (9th Cir. 2002) (delays in medical treatment do not constitute an Eighth
    Amendment violation unless the defendants know that “delays would cause
    significant harm”).
    We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
    United States v. Elias, 
    921 F.2d 870
    , 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief. Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Varnell’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief,
    is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    18-35771