James Jamil Garrett v. NGOZI IGBINOSA, Medical Department, CSATF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES JAMIL GARRETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NGOZI IGBINOSA, Medical Department,
CSATF,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-15552

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00259-LJO-JDP

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner James Jamil Garrett 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 and retaliation. We have jurisdiction

*
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 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
under 28 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 on Garrett’s
deliberate indifference claim because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Dr. Igbinosa was deliberately indifferent to Garrett’s
Valley Fever and pain and mobility issues by continuing to prescribe fluconazole.
See id. at 1060-61 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or
she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical
malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of
treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrett’s
retaliation claim because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether Dr. Igbinosa’s medical treatment constituted an adverse action. See
Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements of a
retaliation claim in the prison context).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garrett’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Garrett failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement for

3
appointment of counsel).
AFFIRMED.