Darryl Pugh v. P. Lam, M.d.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DARRYL PUGH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
P. LAM, M.D., et al.,
Defendant(s)-Appellee(s).
No. 20-15736
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06803-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Darryl Pugh 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. L.F. v. Lake Wash. Sch. Dist. #414, 947 F.3d 621, 625 (9th Cir.
* 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 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-15736
2020). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
Friederichs because Pugh failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Friederichs was deliberately indifferent in treating Pugh’s neck, shoulder,
and arm pain, and right hand numbness. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that deliberate indifference is a “high legal
standard” requiring that a prison official know of and disregard 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); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a prisoner
must show that the course of treatment was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances and chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the
prisoner’s health).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or 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 arguments incorporated by reference into the briefs. See Indep. Towers of
Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (this court reviews only
issues argued specifically in a party’s opening brief).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-15736
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) (“Documents
or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
We do not consider Pugh’s renewed request for appointment of counsel
(Docket Entry No. 16). In Docket Entry No. 11, this court denied Pugh’s motion
for appointment of counsel and ordered that no motions for reconsideration,
clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or entertained.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --