GAUFF v. PERKINS (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Cardell Gauff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 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 a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gauff’s action because Gauff failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to Gauff’s Hepatitis C diagnosis. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of a constitutional right, ․ [under § 1983 ], if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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).

Gauff’s pending motion is denied.

AFFIRMED.