FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMADEO SANCHEZ, No. 12-16925
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00310-LRH-
WGC
v.
RENEE BAKER, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Amadeo Sanchez, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his safety. 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
*
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).
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sanchez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Baker knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to Sanchez’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she
“knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety; the official must
both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial
risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference”); Berg v.
Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 460 (9th Cir. 1986) (summary judgment was proper
where plaintiff had not provided evidence demonstrating that defendants “had any
reason to believe” that plaintiff would be attacked).
To the extent that Sanchez’s action challenges prior parole suitability
decisions or would otherwise necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the duration
of his confinement, it is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See
Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1997) (Heck bars prisoner’s
§ 1983 action alleging that “defendants violated his due process rights by
considering false information in his prison file to find him ineligible for parole”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or documents presented for the first time on appeal. See
2 12-16925
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); 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 reject Sanchez’s contentions concerning discovery because the record
shows that the district court ordered Baker to respond to Sanchez’s discovery
before it granted summary judgment and the record does not show that the
responses were inadequate.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16925