Benjamin Freeman v. Douglas Ducey;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN FREEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS DUCEY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16090
D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00287-RM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Benjamin Freeman appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his health, safety, and serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
* 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).
FILED
SEP 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16090
decision regarding appointment of counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
(9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
In his opening brief, Freeman fails to address the district court’s basis for
granting summary judgment and has therefore waived his challenge to the district
court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in
appellant’s opening brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.
1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are
waived).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Freeman’s
requests for appointment of counsel because Freeman has not made the requisite
showing of exceptional circumstances for the appointment of counsel. See Palmer,
560 F.3d at 970.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --