NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT GONZALEZ SAENZ, No. 19-15120
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05316-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
A. SALAZAR, Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert Gonzalez Saenz 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 and retaliation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Guatay Christian
*
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).
Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Salazar
on Saenz’s deliberate indifference claim because Saenz failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether Salazar was deliberately indifferent to
Saenz’s hernia and intestinal issues. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-
60 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate indifference is a “high legal standard”
requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s
health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the
course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Salazar
on Saenz’s retaliation claim because Saenz failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Salazar’s alleged conduct did not reasonably advance a
legitimate correctional goal. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.
1995) (“[A] successful retaliation claim requires a finding that the prison
authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional
institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th
Cir. 1994) (explaining that “preserving institutional order and discipline” are
legitimate penological objectives).
We reject as meritless Saenz’s contentions that the district court ignored
2 19-15120
“alterations or manipulations” of exhibits and improperly relied on “sham
declarations.”
Saenz’s requests that Salazar pay his costs and fees on appeal, set forth in
the opening and reply briefs, are denied.
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court, see United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990), or 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.
3 19-15120