PEDRO CAMACHO-CORONA V. ANGEL ORTIZ, No. 18-55218 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 20 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO CAMACHO-CORONA, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-55218 D.C. No. 5:14-cv-00543-VAP-KK v. ANGEL ORTIZ, M.D., in individual capacity; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Pedro Camacho-Corona appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on CamachoCorona’s claim against defendant Blier because Camacho-Corona failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any delay in treatment for his surgery wound evinces in deliberate indifference. See Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay of medical treatment evinces deliberate indifference to a serious medical need only if the delay caused significant harm). The district court properly granted summary judgment on CamachoCorona’s claim against defendant Castillo on the basis of qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that denying Camacho-Corona access to a wheelchair was unlawful under the circumstances. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (explaining two-part test for qualified immunity). 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). 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.