Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela v. ARLENE McKAMEY, Nurse Practitioner

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARLENE McKAMEY, Nurse Practitioner;
ELIZA HOMER, Assistant Facility Health
Administrator at Corizon - Eyman,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16492
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00020-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, 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
* 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).
FILED
JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16492
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1065
(9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Homer and
McKamey were deliberately indifferent to Valenzuela’s bladder condition. See id.
at 1066-68 (an official is “deliberately indifferent” if she “knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”; a difference of opinion between a
physician and the prisoner concerning what medical care is appropriate does not
amount to deliberate indifference (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Valenzuela’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 10,
20) are granted. However, to the extent that the documents have not been filed in
the district court, we do not consider them. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d
870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court
are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --