NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
AUG 11 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO GARCIA, No. 19-15271
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-04569-DJH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CORIZON HEALTH, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
DONNA MENDOZA; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 5, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Alfredo Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s
*
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).
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference
to his serious dental needs. 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
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Corizon
Health, Inc. (“Corizon”) because Garcia failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Corizon’s policy or custom caused him to suffer a
constitutional injury. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th
Cir. 2012) (a private entity is liable under § 1983 only if the entity acted under
color of state law and the constitutional violation was caused by the entity’s
official policy or custom); Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060-61 (a prison official acts with
deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards a risk to the
prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence or difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garcia’s untimely
motion for leave to amend his complaint because Garcia did not demonstrate good
cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-09 (9th Cir.
1992) (setting forth the standard of review and explaining that a party seeking
leave to amend the pleadings after the date specified in the scheduling order must
show diligence in seeking the amendment to satisfy the “good cause” standard).
2 19-15271
We reject as unsupported by the record Garcia’s contention that the district
court failed to construe his pleadings liberally.
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).
Garcia’s request for judicial notice of district court case law (Docket Entry
No. 18) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-15271