NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANTE HANALEI PATTISON, No. 15-16912
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00020-MMD-
VPC
v.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, EX REL, MEMORANDUM*
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Dante Hanalei Pattison appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision on cross-motions
for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670
F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on
Pattison’s retaliation claim because Pattison failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants retaliated against him because of his earlier
lawsuit. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting
forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on
Pattison’s deliberate indifference claim because Pattison failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.
2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90
F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (difference in opinion between the physician and the
prisoner regarding the appropriate course of treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
2 15-16912
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, including discovery and case management issues. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Pattison’s contention that the district
court was biased against him.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-16912