MELINDA VALENZUELA V. KATAUSHIA THOMAS, No. 18-17166 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-17166 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00635-DLR MEMORANDUM* KATAUSHIA THOMAS, Facility Health Administrator at Lewis Complex; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 * 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). (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to her back pain. 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 difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Valenzuela’s motion to order appellees to provide correct addresses (Docket Entry No. 34) is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 18-17166
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.
