ROBERTO JUAREZ V. R. ROCAMORA, No. 15-15642 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 03 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO JUAREZ, No. 15-15642 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02800-WHO v. MEMORANDUM* R. ROCAMORA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William H. Orrick, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Roberto Juarez, a California 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 Cir. * 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). 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Juarez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his injured wrist. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards 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). Contrary to Juarez’s contention, the district court’s decision did not rest on the grievance responder’s misstatement that Juarez was capable of playing basketball. 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). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15642

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.