MELINDA VALENZUELA V. ARLENE MCKAMEY, No. 16-16492 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16492 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00020-NVW v. MEMORANDUM* ARLENE McKAMEY, Nurse Practitioner; ELIZA HOMER, Assistant Facility Health Administrator at Corizon - Eyman, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Homer and McKamey were deliberately indifferent to Valenzuela’s bladder condition. See id. at 1066-68 (an official is “deliberately indifferent” if she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”; a difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Valenzuela’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 10, 20) are granted. However, to the extent that the documents have not been filed in the district court, we do not consider them. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-16492

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.