Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0428-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Troy ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James WALKER, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2014.
    Troy Allen, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Kathleen Boergers, Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Troy Allen 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 health and safety in connection with his exposure to excessive heat in a transport van. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Allen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants consciously disregarded a serious risk to Allen’s health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 845, 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference if she or “he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it”); Keenan, 83 F.3d at 1091 (Eighth Amendment “guarantees adequate heating” but does not require a “comfortable” temperature); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (party opposing summary judgment may not rest on con-clusory assertions, but must come forward with significant probative evidence).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motion for appointment of counsel because Allen 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 do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).