ROBERTO LOPEZ V. R. RICE, No. 16-16228 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO CAMPA LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16228 D.C. No. 3:13-cv-03330-JD v. MEMORANDUM* R. RICE, Lt; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Roberto Campa Lopez, 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). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lopez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any of the defendants consciously disregarded an excessive risk to Lopez’s health. See Zetwick v. County of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment appropriate when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference is demonstrated by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or medical need and harm caused by the indifference). 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 16-16228

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.