Case Name: Dennis Wayne MIZE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. TSENG, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-20
Citations: 703 F. App'x 547
Docket Number: No. 16-17074
Parties: Dennis Wayne MIZE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. TSENG, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 703
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
Dennis Wayne MIZE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. TSENG, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-17074
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 15, 2017
Filed November 20, 2017
Dennis Wayne Mize, Pro Se
Byron M. Miller, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mize’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Dennis Wayne Mize appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing 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 a dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mize's Eighth Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity because defendants' conduct did not violate clearly established law. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 739, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) ("For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right," (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Mize's request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.