Richard Burgos v. Robert Long , 599 F. App'x 790 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS, No. 14-15279
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01906-JAM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT LONG; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Richard Manuel Burgos 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, Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726
*
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).
F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Burgos failed
to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether prison staff were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs with regard to his cell
assignment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison
official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment . . . unless the official
knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health[.]”).
The district court acted within its discretion in denying Burgos’s motion to
compel defendants to respond to his late discovery requests and in denying his
motion to supplement his opposition to summary judgment with a declaration from
another inmate. See Kulas v. Flores, 255 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting
forth standard of review for a district court’s rulings concerning discovery and
evidentiary issues).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Burgos’s motions to
appoint counsel because Burgos did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of
review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
Burgos’s challenge to the denial of his motions for temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v.
2 14-15279
Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been
decided, the reversal of a denial of preliminary relief would have no practical
consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-15279