Case Name: Arthur Ray JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SADEGHI, M.D., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-30
Citations: 623 F. App'x 885
Docket Number: No. 14-16190
Parties: Arthur Ray JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SADEGHI, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 885–886

Head Matter:
Arthur Ray JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SADEGHI, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-16190.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 30, 2015.
Arthur Ray Jones, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Kristen A. Pico, Hassard Bonnington LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Arthur Ray Jones appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference 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), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Dr. Sadeghi was deliberately indifferent in the treatment of Jones's left eye. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner's health; medical malpractice or negligence and a mere difference in opinion are insufficient).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones's motion to appoint counsel because Jones did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
We reject Jones's contention that the district court erred by not allowing him to cross-examine defendant or defendant's witnesses.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir, R. 36-3.