FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH W. CANDLER, No. 13-16632
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01969-JAM-
CKD
v.
HAMMONS, Correctional Officer, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Keith W. Candler, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
*
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).
indifference to his serious medical needs.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).
We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside
Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Summary judgment was proper because Candler failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether Hammons was deliberately indifferent to his
asthma and breathing problems. 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”); see also Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of
Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1084 (9th Cir. 2013) (defendants “did not act with
deliberate indifference toward [the prisoner] as they reasonably relied on the
expertise of the prison’s medical staff”); Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (if the harm is an
isolated exception to the prisoner’s overall treatment, it ordinarily militates against
a finding of deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Candler’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Candler failed to demonstrate exceptional
1
Candler filed his complaint and appeal under the name “Keith Candler.”
However, he is imprisoned under the name “Keith Chandler.” Candler’s prison
medical records and many of the documents filed in the district court, including the
relevant district court orders, refer to Appellant as “Keith Chandler.”
2 13-16632
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for
appointment of counsel).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-16632