NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH LEE TAYLOR, No. 15-16744
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00915-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LAURIE THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Lee Taylor, 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Taylor failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Thomas was deliberately
indifferent in the treatment of Taylor’s internal and external hemorrhoids and
bleeding. See id. at 1057-60 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard;
medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course
of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Taylor’s motion to
compel depositions because Taylor did not file the motion until after judgment was
entered. See Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004)
(setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Taylor’s motion for
sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 because Taylor failed to
demonstrate any basis for imposing sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Christian
v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of
review).
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).
2 15-16744
Taylor’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel (Docket Entry No. 28) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-16744