T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MI C HA E L VI C T OR Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. A RN O LD SCH W A RZEN EG G ER, G o v e rn o r ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16187 D. C. No . 1 : 0 5 - c v - 0 1 5 7 8 - LJ O- DLB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a w r e nc e J . O ’ N e i l l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry11, 2013 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H IM A , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner M i chae l V i ct ory app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te i n d i f f e r e n c e t o h i s s e r i o u s me d i c a l n e e d s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED FEB 20 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16187 2 § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, B arne t t v . C e ntoni , 31 F . 3d 813, 8 1 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , a n dad e te rm in a tio n th a t ap r is o n e rf a ile dto e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s u n d e rth e P r is o n L itig a tio n R e f o rm A c t, W

yat t v. T e rhune , 3 1 5 F .3 d1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f f irm . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause V i ct ory f a ile dto e s tab lis h ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rd e f

e n d a n ts c o n s c io u s lyd is r e g a r d e dV ic to ry ’s s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s b yd e n y in g h is r e q u e s ts f o ra n e g g c r a te m a ttr e s s , alo w e rtie rc e ll, an M R I , a n dab o n e s c a n . See T oguc hi v . Chung , 391 F . 3d 1051, 1057 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( di s c us s i ng obj e c t i ve a nd s ubj e c t i ve e le m e n ts o f

d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e c la im ) ; s e e a ls o id. a t1059- 60 ( di f f e r e nc e of o p in io n c o n c e rn in g th e ap p r o p r ia te c o u r s e o f tr e a tm e n t d o e s n o t am o u n t to del i bera t e i nd i ff

er ence ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d V i c t ory ’ s c l a i m s c onc e rni ng defe nd ant s’ al l eged i nt er fe re nce w i th h i s pre sc ript i on m edi ci ne becuase V i ct ory f a ile dto e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s w ith r e s p e c t to th e s e c la im s . See W oodf ord v . N go , 548 U . S . 81, 85, 93- 95 ( 2006) ( hol di ng tha t“ pr ope re xhaus t i on” is m a n d a to rya n dr e q u ir e s a d h e r e n c e to a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e du r a l ru le s ) ; Sa pp v. Kim b r e ll , 623 F . 3d 813, 823- 24 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( f ut i l i tye xc e pt i on t o the11- 16187 3 a dm i ni s tr a t i ve e xhaus t i on r e qui r e m e ntr e qui r e s tha tthe i nm a t e e s t abl i s h “ tha the ac tual l y f i l ed a gri evance or gri evances ”) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g V ic to ry ’s m u ltip le r e q u e s ts f

o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l b e c au s e V ic to ryf a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s tan c e s . See P alm erv. V aldez , 56 0 F . 3d 96 5, 97 0 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( se tt i ng forth st andard of revi ew and the except i on alci rc um st ance s r e q u ir e m e n t) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g V ic to ry ’s m o tio n to c om pe l be c aus e the m ot i on w a s unt i m e l ya nd V i c t oryf a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h good c au s e to e x c u s e h is la te f ilin g . Se e L aub v . U

. S. D e p’ t of I nte r i or , 342 F . 3d 1080, 10 84 , 10 93 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( se tt i ng forth st andard of revi ew and al l ow i ng re vers al onl yw i th “ the c l e a r e s ts how i ng tha tthe de ni a l of di s c ove ryr e s ul t s i n a c tua l a nd subst ant i alprej ud i ce t o the com pl ai ni ng l i t i gant ”) . V i c t ory ’ s m ot i on f

orj udi c i a l not i c e , f

i l e d on A ugus t12, 2011, i s gr a nt e d. AF F I RME D.