Sy Lee Castle v. George Parkinson;

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).
RGS: Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SY LEE CASTLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE PARKINSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-15341
D.C. No. CV-01-20187-JW
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
James Ware, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Sy Lee Castle, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

RGS: Research 08-15341 2
§ 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision regarding
appointment of counsel. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Castle’s request
for appointment of counsel because Castle did not demonstrate that exceptional
circumstances existed. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against
Dr. George Parkinson because Castle failed to raise a triable issue as to whether
Parkinson knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Castle’s health, as required
by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Rather, various medical reports,
physicians’ progress notes, and other undisputed evidence showed that Castle
received continuous medical care and numerous accommodations from Parkinson
and others during the relevant period. The district court also properly granted
summary judgment on the claims against Dr. Paul Pavlovic because Castle failed
to raise a triable issue that Pavlovic was deliberately indifferent when he reviewed
one of Castle’s administrative appeals related to his request for additional physical
therapy. At most, Castle established that he disagreed with his physicians, and that
there was a difference of opinion among some of his treating physicians, as to his

-- 2 of 3 --

RGS: Research 08-15341 3
need for further physical or other therapy. However, such differences of opinion
do not amount to deliberate indifference. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058.
Castle’s motion for leave to file an oversized reply brief is granted. The
Clerk is instructed to file the brief received on October 6, 2008.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --