Jeffrey E. Rodriguez v. TODD THOMAS, Warden at Saguaro Correctional Center

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY E. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TODD THOMAS, Warden at Saguaro
Correctional Center; PEREZ, Nurse at
Saguaro Correctional Center; D. MARR,
Health Services Administrator at Saguaro
Correctional Center; N. SAMBERG,
Assistant Chief of Security at Saguaro
Correctional Center; ORTEGA, Hotel
Bravo's Unit Counselor at Saguaro
Correctional Center; J. VALENZUELA,
Grievance Coordinator at Saguaro
Correctional Center; B. GRIEGO, Assistant
Warden at Saguaro Correctional Center,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15994
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00527-DWL-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
* 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
FEB 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Jeffrey E. Rodriguez 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 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 because Rodriguez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Perez was
deliberately indifferent to his migraine condition. See id. at 1060-61 (a prison
official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of
opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate
indifference).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --