Vrh v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-1080
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON VRH, No. 24-1080 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01329-CRB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; ELTON JOHN CRENSHAW, Medical Doctor at San Quentin State Prison; J. LEE; SAN QUENTIN REHABILITATION CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Aaron Vrh appeals pro se from the district court’s

* 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). 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 Cir. 2004). We

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Vrh failed to

raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately

indifferent in treating Vrh’s thyroid condition and complaints regarding ear pain.

See Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that a

difference of opinion between a physician and a prisoner concerning appropriate

medical care does not amount to deliberate indifference); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that deliberate indifference requires a

purposeful act or failure to respond, and harm caused by the indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vrh’s motion to

strike defendants’ reply in support of their motion for summary judgment because

the reply was timely filed. See United States v. $133,420.00 in U.S. Currency, 672

F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal, including Vrh’s contentions concerning the appointment of an expert

2 24-1080 witness in district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.

2009).

Vrh’s motion to amend his opening brief (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as

unnecessary because the referenced material is already part of the record on appeal.

Vrh’s motion for appointment of an expert witness (Docket Entry No. 36) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-1080