N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IC HAEL ALLEN LEB OVITZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. REB EC C A KENYON, Supe rvisory R e g iste re d Nurse , Tuc son C om ple x, W inc e ste r Unit, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-17821 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-00369-JGZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 7, 2014 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , GR AB ER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Ariz ona sta te prisone r M ic ha e l Alle n Le bovitz a ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing de libe rat e indiffe re nc e to his serious m e dic a l ne e ds a nd re ta lia tion. W e have 

# FIL ED APR 14 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Lebovitz ’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt c la im s be c a

use Le bovitz

fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nt wa s de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt in he r tre atm e nt of his va rious m e dic a l c o nditions. S e eid . at 1057-58, 1060 (de libe rate indiffe re nc e is a high le ga l sta

nda rd, a nd is m e t only

if the de fe nda

nt knows of a

nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssiverisk to theprisone r’ s he a lth; ne glige nc e an d a m e re diffe re nc e in m e dic a l opinion a re insuffic ie nt); se e also Starr v. Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (re quire m e nt s for e sta b lishing supervisory

lia bility); N e lson v . Pima C

mty . C oll. , 83 F.3d 1075, 1081-82 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ [M ] e re a lle gation a nd spe c ulation do not c re ate a

fa c tua l disputefor purpose s of sum m ary judgm e nt.” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Lebovitz ’ s re ta lia tion c la im be c a use Le bovitz

fa ile d to ra i se a

ge nuine disputeof m at e ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nt took a n a dve rse a c tion a ga inst him be c a use Le bovitz

file d grie va nc e s. Se eBrodhe im v . C

ry , 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth the e le m e nts of a

re ta lia tion c la im in theprison c onte xt a

nd sta ting tha t “ a pla i ntiff m

ust show tha

t his prote c te d

c o n duc t wa s the ‘ s ubsta

nt ia l’ or ‘ m o t ivating’ fa c t or be hind thede fe nda nt’ s c onduc t” (c ita

tion omi tte d)). 1 2 - 1 7 8 2 1 2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Le bovitz ’ s m otion to a p point c ounse l be c a

use Le bovitz

fa ile d to de m onstra

t e e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se ePalme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd re quire m e nt of “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta n c e s” for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l ). Ke ny on’ s m otion to strike portions of Le

bovitz ’ s re ply

brie f, file d on Oc tobe r 17, 2013, is denie d a s m oot be c a use we do not c o nside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e in the re ply brie f, or a l le gat ions ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se eSmith v . U.S. C

ustoms & Borde r Prot. , 741 F.3d 1016, 1020 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014) (de ny ing m otion to strike a s m oot). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 7 8 2 1 3