Eric Henry Saldivar v. Michael Sayre;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC HENRY SALDIVAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL SAYRE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16062
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03809-JW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Ware, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Eric Henry Saldivar 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.
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Saldivar
failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any of the
defendants were deliberately indifferent in the treatment of his esophageal varices,
motion sickness, and ruptured appendix. See id. at 1060 (“Deliberate indifference
is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or negligence is
insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth
Amendment.”); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (a
difference of opinion does not amount to deliberate indifference, unless the
prisoner shows that the defendants chose a medically unacceptable course of
treatment in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Saldivar’s motion
for appointment for counsel because Saldivar did not demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting
forth the standard of review and explaining the “exceptional circumstances”
requirement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Saldivar’s state law claims after dismissing his
12-16062 2

-- 2 of 3 --

federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d
1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
12-16062 3

-- 3 of 3 --