NOEL WATKINS V. BICK, No. 15-15817 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED AUG 05 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOEL KEITH WATKINS, No. 15-15817 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00416-WBSCKD v. MEMORANDUM* BICK; DHILLON, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Noel Keith Watkins 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 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). 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Watkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his cardiological pain. See id. at 1057-58 (to establish deliberate indifference, treatment must be “medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and “chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk” to a prisoner’s health (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); neither negligence nor a prisoner’s difference of opinion with prison medical authorities constitutes deliberate indifference). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15817

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.