JOHN JACKSON V. N. AKABIKE
This text of JOHN JACKSON V. N. AKABIKE (JOHN JACKSON V. N. AKABIKE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN H. JACKSON, No. 22-16109
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01442-JLT-EPG
v. MEMORANDUM* N. AKABIKE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner John H. Jackson 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 (9th Cir.
* 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). 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jackson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was
deliberately indifferent in treating Jackson’s stomach issues. See id. at 1057-60
(prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard
a risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of
opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a prisoner
alleging deliberate indifference based on delay in treatment must show that the
delay caused significant harm).
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).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
2 22-16109
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
JOHN JACKSON V. N. AKABIKE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-jackson-v-n-akabike-ca9-2022.