Opinion
No. 18-16848
07-24-2019
AVON DAVIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CROSSON, Dr., Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02831-MCE-CKD MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Avon Davies 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 Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davies failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to Davies's eye-related medical issues. 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; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We reject as unsupported by the record Davies's contentions that he alleged a due process claim and that the district court erred by failing to consider it.
To the extent Davies appeals the district court's September 21, 2017 order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction, it was previously affirmed by this court in Davies v. Crosson, 731 Fed. App'x 681 (9th Cir. 2018), and cannot be reexamined. See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The law of the case doctrine . . . precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court . . . .").
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.