DUDA v. Brian E. Williams; Brettenbach, Defendants. (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Chet Duda appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Duda failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious risk to Duda’s health or safety in connection with excessive heat in his cell. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (explaining that a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if the prison official “knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”).

We reject as meritless Duda’s contention that he was entitled to a jury trial.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider the excerpts from the Merck Manual because these documents were not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Duda’s request for a six-month extension of time to file a supplemental reply brief, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.