Edwin Turner v. L. Nolan;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN TURNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
L. NOLAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15923
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01486-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Edwin Turner appeals pro from the district court’s
summary judgment in his action alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation
claims related to the treatment of his heart palpitations and pain. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
* 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
AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-15923
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Turner’s
deliberate indifference claim because Turner failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in the treatment
of Turner’s heart palpitations and pain. See id. at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference
is a high legal standard; a difference of medical opinion concerning the course of
treatment, negligence, or medical malpractice does not amount to deliberate
indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Turner’s
retaliation claim against defendants Jacobsen and Risenhoover because Turner
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether these defendants
took any adverse action against him because of his protected conduct. See Rhodes
v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim
in the prison context); see also Wood v. Yordy, 753 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“[M]ere speculation that defendants acted out of retaliation is not sufficient.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Turner’s state law claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has
“dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Costanich v. Dep’t
of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-15923
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 --