Jeffrey Anthony Franklin v. George Giurbino;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY ANTHONY FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GEORGE GIURBINO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15407
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-04755-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jeffrey Anthony Franklin appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing 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. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010)
* 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
JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
(district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); May v. Baldwin, 109
F.3d 557, 560-61 (9th Cir. 1997) (district court’s decision on qualified immunity).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Franklin’s action because it would not
have been clear to every reasonable official that relying on a nurse’s judgment that
there was no medical reason prohibiting Franklin’s prison transfer was unlawful
under the circumstances. See Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)
(explaining two-part test for qualified immunity); Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d
1076, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (in order to be liable for deliberate indifference, “the
official must be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a
substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Franklin’s contentions regarding the district court’s failure to provide him
with an opportunity to conduct discovery are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --