Christopher Bailey v. STEVE SHELTON, MD, Individual capacity;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CHRISTOPHER BAILEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEVE SHELTON, MD, Individual
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35171
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01905-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2013**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Christopher Bailey appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference in the treatment of his skin condition. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
JAN 17 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-35171 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bailey failed
to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Lytle was
deliberately indifferent in treating Bailey’s scabies. See id. at 1060 (“Deliberate
indifference is a high legal standard. A showing of medical malpractice or
negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth
Amendment.”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (conclusory
allegations are insufficient to defeat summary judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bailey’s motion for
appointment of counsel because Bailey did not demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting
forth the standard of review and explaining the “exceptional circumstances”
requirement).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --