BILLY DRIVER, Jr. v. L. D. Zamora, in individual capacity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY DRIVER, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. D. ZAMORA, in individual capacity
and Chief Health Care Appeals, in official
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-56519
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02170-BRO-
AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Billy Driver, Jr., appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
OCT 23 2015
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 the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th
Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Driver’s action because Driver failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs by denying his request for prostate and colon treatment from
an outside hospital. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004)
(a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; neither a difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment nor negligence in diagnosing or treating a
medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference); Nat’l Ass’n for the
Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049
(9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief, a
court may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Driver’s requests
for appointment of counsel and a special master. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1102-04 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review for
appointment of counsel and describing the factors to be considered before
appointing counsel); United States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 774-
14-56519 2

-- 2 of 3 --

75 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review for appointment of a special
master and explaining that a special master is only appointed under exceptional
conditions).
We reject Driver’s contentions that his consent to proceed before the
magistrate judge was required before the magistrate judge could screen his
complaint or submit her report and recommendation to the district court. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B).
We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised
and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Driver’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-56519 3

-- 3 of 3 --