Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael James HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda NEAL, Program Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17343.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2014.
    Michael James Hicks, Represa, CA, pro se.
    Jennifer Celeste Addams, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Ann Hoffmann Larson, Esquire, McNamara, Ney, Beatty, Slattery, Borges & Ambacher, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael James Hicks appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety and 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hicks failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted in conscious disregard of a risk to any serious health or safety issue. See id. at 1057-58 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety); see also Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996) (a difference of opinion as to the need to pursue one course of treatment over another is not actionable under the Eighth Amendment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hicks’s motion for appointment of counsel because Hicks failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (setting forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We reject Hicks’s contentions that the district court erred by denying his motions for service of subpoenas and to amend named parties and the nature of his action.

Hicks’s request for judicial notice, filed on June 4, 2014, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.