Case ID: f-appx_505/html/0655-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve SHELTON, MD, Individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35171.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 17, 2013.
    Christopher Bailey, Umatilla, OR, pro se.
    Rebecca Johansen, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Christopher Bailey appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference in the treatment of his skin condition. 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 Bailey failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Lytle was deliberately indifferent in treating Bailey’s scabies. See id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (conclusory allegations are insufficient to defeat summary judgment).

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

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