Case ID: f-appx_469/html/0575-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose J. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael C. LESAC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-15316.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Filed Feb. 27, 2012.
    Leo James Terrell, Law Office of Leo James Terrell, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Robin Maile O’Sullivan, Deputy City, Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose J. Rodriguez, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent 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). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Rodriguez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s treatment of Rodriguez’s knee constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-58 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety; a difference of medical opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

To the extent that Rodriguez challenges the denial of appointment of counsel, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Rodriguez failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement). Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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