OSSIE GILES V. CA CORRECTIONS HEALTH CARE, No. 17-16861 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSSIE GILES, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16861 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:15-cv-04838-YGR v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS HEALTH CARE SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Ossie Giles, 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 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 Giles failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately different to his severe back pain. See id. 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, and negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition do not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates). 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). We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. 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 17-16861
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.
