FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 31 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CALVIN ROUSE, No. 09-35131
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-cv-05183-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DOUG WADDINGTON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Calvin Rouse, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
discriminatory placement in administrative segregation, deliberate indifference to
*
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).
IL/Research
09-35131
serious medical needs, and excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and for abuse of discretion its refusal
to appoint counsel, Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on
Rouse’s discrimination claim because Rouse offered no evidence that prison
officials were motivated by discriminatory animus against Rouse on the basis of
his race or religion when they placed him in administrative segregation. See
Forsberg v. Pac. Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 840 F.2d 1409, 1419 (9th Cir. 1988)
(“[P]urely conclusory allegations of alleged discrimination, with no concrete,
relevant particulars, will not bar summary judgment.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on
Rouse’s claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his skin infection, which
Rouse concedes medical staff treated. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1060 (“A showing
of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional
deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.”).
IL/Research
2 09-35131
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants on
Rouse’s claim that they subjected him to excessive force because Rouse failed to
raise a triable issue as to whether correctional officers acted in a good-faith effort
to restore order or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. See Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to appoint counsel
for Rouse because, to the extent Rouse had sought the appointment of counsel, he
did not establish the requisite exceptional circumstances. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at
1017 (affirming refusal to appoint counsel where plaintiff’s writing and legal
knowledge were sufficient, matter was not substantially complex, and plaintiff was
unlikely to succeed on merits).
Rouse’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
IL/Research
3 09-35131