Arnold Aguirre v. J. Adamo

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARNOLD AGUIRRE, No. 11-16569
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00763-MHP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
J. ADAMO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Arnold Aguirre, 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 serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 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 Aguirre
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether served defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his dental or other serious medical needs. See
Rodriguez v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 605 F.3d 703, 711 (9th Cir. 2010)
(defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if there is no constitutional violation);
Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1056-60 (discussing deliberate indifference standard).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aguirre’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Aguirre failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstance” requirement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’ motion
to stay discovery. See Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)
(district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery until the issue of
immunity was decided).
Aguirre’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16569