NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY LEE HOWZE, No. 18-55600
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01341-SVW-
RAO
v.
EMILY MALAN, Registered Nurse, MEMORANDUM*
individual,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Johnny Lee Howze 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 Cir.
*
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).
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant because
Howze failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any delay in
treatment for his urinary condition resulted in significant harm. See Hallett v.
Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (a delay of medical treatment evinces
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need only if the delay caused
significant harm).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Howze’s motion to
appoint counsel because Howze 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 denying Howze’s motion to
conduct further discovery because Howze failed to demonstrate how additional
discovery would have precluded summary judgment. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140
F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
the burden is on the party seeking additional discovery to proffer sufficient facts to
show that the evidence sought would preclude summary judgment).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 18-55600
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-55600