FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS MORALES, No. 11-15809
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-04441-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Morales, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants
Pompan, Risenhoover, and Duncan because Morales failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ treatment of Morales’s right knee
constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-58 (deliberate indifference
occurs when the prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the
inmate’s health and safety; a mere disagreement between a prisoner and medical
personnel over the proper course of treatment fails to establish deliberate
indifference). Morales does not challenge the dismissal of the other defendants
named in his original complaint.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morales’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Morales failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
Morales’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
The district court did not mention Morales’s state law claim in the order
granting summary judgment. We deem the state law claims to have been
dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15809