Bryant Allen v. S. Roche

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRYANT ALLEN, No. 12-16133

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03068-JAM-
CKD
v.

S. M. ROCHE, Chief Medical Officer; T. MEMORANDUM *
FELKER, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 11, 2013 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Bryant Allen, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

violations and pendent state law claims in connection with the medical care he

*
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).
received for his broken thumb. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo, Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), and we

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Allen’s pendent

state law claims because Allen failed to comply with the presentment requirements

of the California Tort Claims Act. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839

F.2d 621, 627 (9th Cir. 1988).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allen’s motion to

reconsider its summary judgment because Allen failed to establish any basis for

reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion and

setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

We do not consider issues that are not specifically and distinctly raised and

argued in the opening brief, including those relating to summary judgment on

Allen’s deliberate indifference claim. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052

(9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-16133