N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FLORENC IO P. VALLEJO,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. GR AY, Dr., e t

a l ., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16713 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-02352-AW ISKO
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2016 * * B e fore : HAW K INS, N.R . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Flore nc io P. Va lle

jo, a C a lifornia sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a ls 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 se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo. Hamilton v
. Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th 

# FIL ED SEP 20 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).C ir. 2011) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A); Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004) (sum m ary judgm e nt). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for de fe nda

nt Gra y be c a use Va lle jo fa ile d to ra i se a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r Gray wa s de l ibe rate ly

indiffe re nt to Va lle

jo’ s se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. S e e Toguc hi , 391 F.3d a

t 1057 (a prison offic ia l is de libe rate l y indiffe re nt only if he or she knows of a

n d disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to a

n inm ate ’ s he a lth); se ealso Le mire
v . C al. De p’t of C orr. &Re hab ., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th C i r. 2013) (e xpla ining that pla intiffs a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e in § 1983 a c tions “m ust . . . de m onstra

te tha t the de fe nda

nts’ a c tions we re both a

n a c tua l a nd proxim ate c a

use of the ir injurie s ” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Va lle

jo’ s c la i m unde r the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t (the “ ADA” ) be c a use Va lle jo fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha

t the a lle ge d viola

t i on a rose from disc rim ination a ga inst him be c a use of
a disa bility
. Se eSimmons v . N

a v ajo C ounty , Ariz. , 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ The ADA prohibits disc rim ination be c a

use of disa

bility , not ina de quate tre atm e nt for disa

bility
. ” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Va lle

jo’ s re que sts for a p pointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use Va lle jo did not show exc e ptiona l
1 5
- 1 6 7 1 3 2c 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 e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s re quire m e nt for
a ppointm e nt of c ounse l ). W e do not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 5
- 1 6 7 1 3 3