Jose J. Rodriguez v. Michael C. Lesac

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE J. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL C. LESAC,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-15316
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01050-FJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose J. Rodriguez, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant
was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
FILED
FEB 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15316 2
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 because Rodriguez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s
treatment of Rodriguez’s knee constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-
58 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and
disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety; a difference of
medical opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to
deliberate indifference).
To the extent that Rodriguez challenges the denial of appointment of
counsel, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Rodriguez 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).
Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --