Paul E. Ray v. M. Sepulveda, M.d.; Pompan, M.d.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL E. RAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. SEPULVEDA, M.D.; POMPAN,
M.D.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16487
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00032-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Paul E. Ray, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
JUL 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Ray failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately
indifferent in treating his biceps injury. See id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is
a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is
insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth
Amendment.”); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[W]here a
defendant has based his actions on a medical judgment that either of two
alternative courses of treatment would be medically acceptable under the
circumstances, plaintiff has failed to show deliberate indifference, as a matter of
law.”); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements
for establishing supervisory liability).
We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
13-16487 2

-- 2 of 2 --