FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT YOUNG, No. 09-17690
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:03-cv-00951-FCD-
JFM
v.
PETER BRESLER, Doctor, CA Mens MEMORANDUM *
Colony; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Darrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Albert Young, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his hepatitis C in violation of his federal and state constitutional
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir. 2001). We may affirm on any
ground supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem–Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d
802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
Summary judgment for defendants Brown and McArthur was proper
because Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their
failure to inform Young that he had hepatitis C and provide him treatment for his
Hepatitis C caused or will cause Young further injury. See Shapely v. Nev. Bd. of
State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (a delay in
medical treatment must lead to further injury to support a claim of deliberate
indifference); see also Ochoa v. Superior Court, 703 P.2d 1, 10-14 (Cal. 1985)
(applying the same analytic framework to the plaintiff’s claim of deliberate
indifference to medical needs under the state and federal constitutions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Young’s request for
appointment of new counsel after Young terminated his prior court-appointed
counsel because Young failed to show “exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v.
Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth the standard of
review).
Young’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
2 09-17690
Young’s requests for appointment of counsel and an expert, set forth in his
supplement to his opening brief, are denied.
Young’s request for judicial notice of his district court filings concerning his
request to terminate counsel is denied as unnecessary because those filings are part
of the record.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-17690