The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
19-17367•United States v. 2020-12-10 | 19-17367 | ALEX VILLA VALENZUELA V. GERARDO GREGORIO | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |
19-17367Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 10, 2020
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX J. VILLA VALENZUELA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GERARDO GREGORIO, Dr./Provider;
ALAIN McGLASHON, Physical Therapist,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-17367
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00642-DWL
MEMORANDUM
*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020
**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Alex J. Villa Valenzuela appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
inadequate medical care while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888
*
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
DEC 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-17367
F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant’s
conduct in the course of treating Valenzuela’s pain was objectively unreasonable.
See id. at 1124-25 (setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for
Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claims brought by pretrial
detainees).
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).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.