Christopher Jackson v. D. Bright, 671 F. App'x 995

Christopher T. Jackson, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (back pain).
District court granted summary judgment for defendants Fernandez, Delgado, and Ellis on claims tied to Grievance No. CTF HC 12037007.
District court dismissed for failure to exhaust claims against Javate, Bright, Adams, and Ellis related to Grievance No. CTF HC 12037457, treating motions as unenumerated Rule 12(b) dismissals.
On reconsideration the district court did not apply this Court’s intervening ruling in Albino about failure-to-exhaust as an affirmative defense, but considered evidence and denied relief.
District court denied leave to file a supplemental complaint because it attempted to add separate, new causes of action.
This Court reviewed de novo and affirmed: summary judgment on deliberate indifference claims and dismissal/summary judgment for failure to exhaust; denied supplemental pleading and refused to consider new arguments raised first on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants showed no genuine dispute that they were not deliberately indifferent to Jackson's back pain	Jackson contended defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs	Defendants argued medical care/decisions did not amount to deliberate indifference (at most negligence or difference of opinion)	Court held summary judgment was proper; Jackson failed to raise a triable issue on deliberate indifference
Whether claims tied to Grievance No. CTF HC 12037457 were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust	Jackson argued exhaustion defense was improperly raised via 12(b) and sought reconsideration under Albino	Defendants argued Jackson failed to exhaust administrative remedies	Court treated dismissal as summary judgment (because district court considered evidence) and affirmed that Jackson failed to exhaust
Whether denial of leave to file a supplemental complaint was an abuse of discretion	Jackson sought to file a supplemental complaint adding distinct/new claims	Defendants opposed as improper supplementation	Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion because the proposed supplement sought separate, new causes of action
Whether this Court should consider arguments raised first on appeal or in reply	Jackson raised additional arguments on appeal/reply	Defendants urged court to ignore new arguments	Court refused to consider matters not distinctly raised in the opening brief or raised first on appeal

Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense normally raised via summary judgment)
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference requires a high showing; difference of opinion or malpractice is insufficient)
Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir.) (administrative officer may rely on medical opinions; no deliberate indifference when relying on other doctors)
Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.) (procedures for dismissal for failure to exhaust under certain circumstances)
Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.) (dismissal can be construed as grant of summary judgment when district court considered evidence)
Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Neely, 130 F.3d 400 (9th Cir.) (supplemental complaint cannot introduce separate, distinct, new causes of action)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir.) (appellate court will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)