From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ezell v. Esquetini

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 21, 2019
No. 17-56038 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2019)

Opinion

No. 17-56038

02-21-2019

TERRY LAMELL EZELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE ESQUETINI, in his capacity as a federal employee acting within the scope of his duties, and as an individual; MARTIN HERNANDEZ, in his capacity as a federal employee acting within the scope of his duties, and as an individual, Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-04791-FMO-DFM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Federal prisoner Terry Lamell Ezell appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Ezell failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in the treatment of his narcolepsy. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (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 do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

We treat Ezell's "amended appeal" (Docket Entry No. 10) as a request to supplement the opening brief, and grant the request. The Clerk shall file Docket Entry No. 10.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Ezell v. Esquetini

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feb 21, 2019
No. 17-56038 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2019)
Case details for

Ezell v. Esquetini

Case Details

Full title:TERRY LAMELL EZELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE ESQUETINI, in his capacity…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Feb 21, 2019

Citations

No. 17-56038 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2019)