Adam Ray Lopez v. SAMUEL KO, Primary Care Physician; MAJA BOYD, Nurse Practitioner

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADAM RAY LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL KO, Primary Care Physician;
MAJA BOYD, Nurse Practitioner,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55174
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-02236-CAB-NLS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Adam Ray Lopez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo, 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
JAN 19 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55174
2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lopez failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent in treating Lopez’s wrist injury. See id. at 1057-60 (prison
officials act with deliberate indifference only if they know of and disregard a risk
to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Lopez failed to establish exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement
for appointment of counsel for indigent civil litigants).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez’s motion to
appoint an expert witness because such an appointment was not necessary for the
court to make its determination. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term
Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard of
review).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --