NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NEXIS RENE GOMEZ, No. 18-16991
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02523-MCE-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
D. BRAUN; N. D. MAJUMDAR,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Nexis Rene Gomez, a California 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 serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gomez failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Gomez’s mental health needs. See id. at 1057-60 (a
prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards
an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment, medical malpractice, and negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical
condition do not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gomez’s motion
for leave to amend his complaint because Gomez failed to demonstrate good cause.
See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir. 1992)
(setting forth standard of review and grounds for denial of leave to amend).
Contrary to Gomez’s contention, Braun’s declaration stating that Braun
made contact with the prison scheduler was properly admitted into evidence.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16991