DANNY GARCIA V. KALISHER, No. 16-15804 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANNY GARCIA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15804 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00045-JD MEMORANDUM* KALISHER, Dr.; et al. Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Danny Garcia, 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 * 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 Garcia failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical conditions. 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; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment, medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to deliberate indifference). Contrary to Garcia’s argument that he was denied fair notice of the rules and procedures pertaining to summary judgment and an opportunity to be heard, the record shows that defendants served Garcia with concurrent notice of the requirements of summary judgment set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 960-61 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 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). Garcia’s motion to accept a supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief at Docket Entry No. 10. To the extent that Garcia seeks leave to supplement the record, this motion (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied. 2 16-15804 Garcia’s other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 13) are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 16-15804
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.
