David Troupe v. Donna Smith;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID TROUPE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DONNA SMITH; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35857
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05671-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner David Troupe appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864, 870 (9th Cir. 2011). We
* 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
APR 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-35857
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Troupe’s claim
against defendants Demars and Mason regarding the videotaping of his shower and
toilet areas because Troupe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (elements of Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Troupe’s claim
against Thompson, Hutchinson, and Demars regarding Troupe’s medical care
because Troupe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
these defendants consciously disregarded a serious medical need. See Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal
standard; mere negligence does not suffice); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096
(9th Cir. 2006) (for deliberate indifference due to delay in medical treatment, the
prisoner must show harm caused by the delay).
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. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-35857
Troupe’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief,
is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --