FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY S. PATERSON, No. 14-16639
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00845-HDM-
WGC
v.
DUNHAM; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Jeffrey S. Paterson appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety in connection with an assault by
other inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
*
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).
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Paterson
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of
and disregarded an excessive risk to Paterson’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (holding that “a prison official cannot be found liable
[for deliberate indifference] unless the official knows of and disregards an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Paterson’s motion
for reconsideration because Paterson failed to demonstrate any grounds for such
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and listing grounds
warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in partially denying Paterson’s
motions to strike and for sanctions because sanctions are only appropriate in
extreme circumstances where the violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault
of the party. See Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002)
(setting forth standard of review).
We reject as unsupported by the record Paterson’s contention that the district
court improperly relied on a transcript of a telephone call attributed to him by
2 14-16639
defendants.
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).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-16639