ARTHUR RAY DEERE Sr. v. CDC EMPLOYEES; PRISON LAW OFFICE; JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR RAY DEERE Sr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CDC EMPLOYEES; PRISON LAW
OFFICE; JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15937
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01694-MCE-DB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Arthur Ray Deere Sr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deliberate indifference to his safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We
* 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 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15937
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Deere failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Lizarraga was
deliberately indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837
(1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be
aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists, and he [or she] must also draw the inference”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Deere’s motion to
appoint counsel because Deere did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of
review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
We reject as meritless Deere’s contention that the magistrate judge should
have recused herself.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --