FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK STEVEN PARKER, No. 13-15870
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02747-GMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNKNOWN ROWE, Dr., FHA in his
individual and official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Mark Steven Parker appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in Parker’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 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 Parker failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Rowe provided
treatment for Parker’s gout that was medically unacceptable under the
circumstances and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to his
health. See id. at 1058 (explaining requirements to prevail on a medical deliberate
indifference claim involving choices between alternative courses of treatment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Parker’s “Motion to
Put Court on Notice of Due Process Violations” because Parker did not seek
specific relief, but rather attempted to raise issues that he had not addressed in any
previous filings. See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 n.11 (9th Cir. 2008)
(reviewing for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision regarding
management of litigation).
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) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15870