Lee Swafford v. Jason Rohrer ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 4 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LEE SWAFFORD, AKA Swafford Lee,                 No. 22-16498
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00721-DAD-AC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JASON ROHRER,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    R. NEUSHMID, Warden; T. WAMBLE;
    OLLER, R.N.; BUCKER, C.O.; JOHNSON,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 18, 2023**
    Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Lee Swafford appeals pro se from the district
    *
    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).
    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. Cortez v. Skol, 
    776 F.3d 1046
    , 1050 (9th Cir. 2015).
    We affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment because Swafford
    failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Rohrer was
    deliberately indifferent to Swafford’s serious medical needs by denying Swafford’s
    requests for a lower bunk accommodation. See Toguchi v. Chung, 
    391 F.3d 1051
    ,
    1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard”
    requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s
    health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the
    course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
    We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    We treat Swafford’s motion (Docket Entry No. 22) as a motion to file a
    supplemental brief and grant the motion. The Clerk will file the brief submitted at
    Docket Entry No. 16.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    22-16498
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-16498

Filed Date: 8/4/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/4/2023