Case Name: Danny Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-25
Citations: 675 F. App'x 768
Docket Number: No. 15-16842
Parties: Danny Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 768–769

Head Matter:
Danny Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16842
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 25, 2017
Danny Lee Williams, Pro Se
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, .Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Ross Miller, Donald Poag, Romeo Aranas, Dr., James Greg Cox, E.K. McDaniel, Matthew Wightman, Shannon Moyle, Catherine Cortez Masto, Isidro Baca, Dwight W. Neven, Terri Jacobs, Tatiana Sowell, Karen Gedney, Gene Yup, Lisa Walsh, Kelly Thompson, Brian Sandoval, Katherine Hegge, John Keast, Melanie McBroom, Marsha John, Dr., Melissa Mitchell
Kim Irene Mandelbaum, Esquire, Attorney, Mandelbaum, Ellerton & Kelly, Las Vegas, NV, Dominique Ann Pollara, Esquire, Attorney, Pollara Law Group, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Sierra Imaging, Carson Tahoe Regional Healthcare and Sierra Surgery Hospital
Alice Campos Mercado,. Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg, Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees James Pincock, Timothy J. King, Dr.
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Nevada state prisoner Danny Lee Williams appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams' Eighth Amendment claims because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate's health; negligence, medical malpractice, and a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment in diagnosing or treating a medical condition do not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly dismissed Williams' First Amendment retaliation claim because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted with retaliatory intent to chill his exercise of protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements of retaliation claim in prisoner context).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams leave to amend his complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile).
The district court' did not abuse its discretion by denying Williams' request for appointment of counsel because Williams failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and describing the factors to be considered before appointing counsel).
We reject as without merit Williams' contention that the district court was biased because it considered the arguments contained in defendants' motions to dismiss.
Williams' request to enter default judgment against defendants-appellees Sierra Surgery Center and Sierra Imaging, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.