FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY HISTON, No. 12-15598
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00979-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES TILTON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Larry Histon appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in 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
*
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).
review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Histon failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in their treatment of his carpal tunnel syndrome. See id. at
1057-58 (neither negligence nor difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment amounts to deliberate indifference); see also Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d
978, 988 (9th Cir. 2012) (prisoner must show that defendant chose a medically
unacceptable course of treatment “in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to
plaintiff’s health” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Histon’s motion for
leave to amend his complaint and to perfect service to unserved defendants because
the motion was moot upon the court’s grant of summary judgment. See Chodos v.
West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of
review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Histon’s motion for
appointment of counsel because Histon did not demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
2 12-15598
We decline to consider those documents submitted by Histon that were not
presented to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); United States v. Sanchez-
Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 548 (9th Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-15598