NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL WINDHAM, Jr., No. 17-17113
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01058-MCE-
CKD
v.
MANUEL SABIN; ZITONG YUN, R.N., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges
California state prisoner Samuel Windham, Jr. 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 review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Windham
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in the treatment of Windham’s leg skin grafts. See id. at
1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning
the course of treatment, medical malpractice, and negligence in diagnosing or
treating a medical condition do not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Windham’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Windham 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 for
appointment of counsel).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Windham’s state law negligence claim. See
Fichman v. Media Ctr., 512 F.3d 1157, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court does
not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state
claims after granting summary judgment on federal claims).
We reject as meritless Windham’s contentions that he stated a colorable
Fourteenth Amendment claim in his operative complaint, his Seventh Amendment
2 17-17113
right to a jury trial was violated, and his procedural due process rights were
violated when his action was removed without his consent to federal court.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-17113