Case ID: f-appx_684/html/0633-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gregory Adonis MURPHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathleen ALLISON, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15575
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    Gregory Adonis Murphy, CMF—Cali-fornia Medical Facility, Vacaville, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant .
    Kenny Khoa Vu Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregory Adonis Murphy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in 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, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Murphy failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his ear pain and hearing loss. See id. at 1057-60 (difference of opinion concerning course of treatment, medical malpractice, or negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Murphy’s motion to appoint counsel because Murphy did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel).

We reject as without merit Murphy’s contention that he was held to a higher standard as a pro se litigant.

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