VALENZUELA v. BARNETT (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Valenzuela’s deliberate indifference claim because Valenzuela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to her medical needs. 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); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (deliberate indifference requires showing a “purposeful act or failure to respond to prisoner’s pain or possible medical need and ․ harm caused by the indifference” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Valenzuela’s retaliation claim because Valenzuela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants took any adverse action against Valenzuela. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

We do not consider documents that were not filed with the district court. See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Papers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court are not part of the clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.”).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.