Gregory Adonis Murphy v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY ADONIS MURPHY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15575
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Adonis Murphy, 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. 2004), and we affirm.
* 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
MAR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15575
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Murphy
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his ear pain and hearing loss. See id. at 1057-60
(difference of opinion concerning course of treatment, medical malpractice, or
negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not amount to
deliberate indifference); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.
2011) (supervisory liability under § 1983 requires “knowledge of and acquiescence
in unconstitutional conduct” by subordinates).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Murphy’s motion
to appoint counsel because Murphy did not demonstrate any 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).
We reject as without merit Murphy’s contention that he was held to a higher
standard as a pro se litigant.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --