PAUL ROBLEDO V. NICOLE TAYLOR, No. 17-15979 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL ANTHONY ROBLEDO, AKA Paul Robledo, AKA Paul A. Robledo, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-15979 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01864-JAT Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. NICOLE TAYLOR, Dr./ Psychologist at ASPC-Florence, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Paul Anthony Robledo, AKA Paul Robledo, AKA Paul A. Robledo, 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 * 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). needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Robledo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Robledo’s mental health. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). We reject as unsupported by the record Robledo’s contention that the district court failed to consider his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). Robledo’s motion to file an oversized reply brief (Docket Entry No. 78) is granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 80. All other pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-15979

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.