Gordon McMain v. COLETTE S. PETERS, Director O.D.O.C.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GORDON MCMAIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COLETTE S. PETERS, Director O.D.O.C.;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
J. TAYLOR, Grievance Coordinator SRCI;
SMITH, BHS Manager SRCI,
Defendants.
No. 18-35766
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01632-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
* 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 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-35766
Former Oregon state prisoner Gordon McMain appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging medical
deliberate indifference and equal protection claims. 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 for defendant Shelton
on McMain’s medical deliberate indifference claim because McMain failed to raise
a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Shelton was deliberately
indifferent by denying McMain testosterone injections. See id. at 1057-60 (a
prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a
difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Shelton
on McMain’s equal protection claim because McMain failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether the denial of testosterone injections lacked a
rational basis. See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per
curiam) (elements of “class of one” equal protection claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-35766
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.

-- 3 of 3 --