Cardell Gauff v. John Perkins ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 11 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CARDELL GAUFF,                                  No. 19-16781
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04492-DGC-
    ESW
    v.
    JOHN PERKINS, Facility Health                   MEMORANDUM*
    Administrator; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 2, 2020**
    Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Arizona state prisoner Cardell Gauff appeals pro se from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing 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
    *
    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).
    review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Gauff’s action because Gauff failed to
    allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to
    Gauff’s Hepatitis C diagnosis. See Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    , 1056-57 (9th
    Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of
    and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health); Leer v. Murphy, 
    844 F.2d 628
    ,
    633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of a constitutional right, . . .
    [under § 1983 ], if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative
    acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
    deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted)).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Gauff’s pending motion is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      19-16781