WILLIE STEPHENS, SR. V. JENNY ESPINOZA, No. 16-16255 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 31 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIE F. STEPHENS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16255 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00116-VC v. MEMORANDUM* JENNY ESPINOZA, M.D. Phys Med.; JULIET DELA CRUZ, R.N., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Willie F. Stephens, Sr., 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 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Stephens failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his foot pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Stephens’ motions to compel discovery because Stephens failed to demonstrate that defendants failed to respond timely to his discovery requests. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and stating that “[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 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 16-16255
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.
