-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RENE F. FERNANDEZ, No. 18-17353 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00812-JCM-NJK v. MEMORANDUM* ROMEO ARANAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. René F. Fernández, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action 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 Fernández failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in their treatment of Fernández’s high blood pressure. 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 about the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking the amended complaint because Fernández did not obtain leave of the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (other than amending “as a matter of course,” a plaintiff may amend his complaint “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave”); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc.,
627 F.3d 402, 403-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review; explaining that a district court has inherent power to control its docket, including power to strike items from the docket). We reject as without merit Fernández’s contentions regarding discovery, expert testimony, or the district court’s bias. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright,
587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 18-17353
Document Info
Docket Number: 18-17353
Filed Date: 12/9/2020
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 12/9/2020