CLAYTON WISE V. ASHLEY MULLIGAN-PFLIE, No. 19-15010 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 14 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAYTON WISE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-15010 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 4:17-cv-05951-JSW MEMORANDUM* ASHLEY MULLIGAN-PFLIE, (MD); et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 11, 2019** Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Clayton Wise 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 Wise failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Mulligan-Pfile, Forster, and Posson were deliberately indifferent in addressing his chronic shoulder pain. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk of harm to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference in medical opinion does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (deliberate indifference claim premised on delay of medical treatment must show that the delay led to significant injury); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not constitute deliberate indifference). 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). We do not consider documents not presented to 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.”). Wise’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 13) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2

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.