Court Opinion

ID: 9380594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 17:00:55.243791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.395771
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR RAY DEERE Sr.,                           No. 21-15937

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01694-MCE-DB

 v.

CDC EMPLOYEES; PRISON LAW                       MEMORANDUM*
OFFICE; JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                 Morrison C. England Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Arthur Ray Deere Sr. appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Deere failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Lizarraga was

deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of

serious harm exists, and he [or she] must also draw the inference”).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Deere’s motion to

appoint counsel because Deere did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of

review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

      We reject as meritless Deere’s contention that the magistrate judge should

have recused herself.

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    21-15937