RAYMOND REDWINE V. R. BRANCH, No. 17-15038 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAYMOND ALLEN REDWINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-15038 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-03109-TEH v. MEMORANDUM* R. BRANCH, M.D., Physician and Surgeon, C.T.F. North Medical, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Raymond Allen Redwine, 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 * 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), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Redwine failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Redwine’s serious medical needs. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a mere difference in medical opinion is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference; a plaintiff “must show that the chosen course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Roberts v. Spalding, 783 F.2d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 1986) (a prisoner has no constitutional right to outside medical care to supplement the medical care provided by the prison). 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 do not consider documents and facts 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.”). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15038

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.