TIMOTHY PEOPLES, JR. V. RICHARD MACK, No. 16-17348 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY PEOPLES, Jr., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-17348 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01281-CRB v. MEMORANDUM* RICHARD B. MACK, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Timothy Peoples, Jr., 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 Peoples failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Mack was deliberately indifferent in his treatment of Peoples’s health conditions. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Peoples’s motion for recusal because Peoples failed to establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 455; United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 1980) (setting forth standard of review); see also Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (test for disqualification of judge under § 455(a)). 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). We reject as without merit Peoples’s contentions regarding the district court’s jurisdiction and defendant Mack’s waiver of his right to reply to the action. AFFIRMED. 2 16-17348
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.
