CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN, AKA Clarence Gibson v. Scott Kernan;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN, AKA Clarence
Gibson,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SCOTT KERNAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15627
D.C. No.
2:12-cv-00556-KJM-DB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Gipbsin appeals from the district court’s summary judgment. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s
summary judgment de novo. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.
* 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
DEC 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
2004). We review a district court’s denial of a motion to appoint counsel for abuse
of discretion. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.1
The district court did not err in holding that the Defendants did not act with
deliberate indifference to any serious medical needs that Gipbsin may have. Gipbsin
provided no evidence that any Defendant knew of and disregarded any excessive
risks to Gipbsin’s health and safety while he was housed and treated at High Desert
State Prison awaiting transfer. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057. Gipbsin received
mental health care, and Gipbsin provided no evidence that this care was
constitutionally inadequate. To the extent Gipbsin disagrees with the treatment he
received, “[a] difference of opinion does not amount to deliberate indifference[.]”
Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, the delay in his
transfer was not caused by any disregard to his health and safety, but by a staff
shortage and an accompanying waitlist at Atascadero State Hospital.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gipbsin’s motions
for the appointment of counsel, as there were no “exceptional circumstances”
warranting such relief. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
1 We deny Gipbsin’s request for judicial counsel review (Dkt. No. 19); motion for
supplemental damages (Dkt. No. 32); and motion to stay responses (Dkt. No. 60).

-- 2 of 2 --