Harold Shamburger v. Sue Risenhoover

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAROLD B. SHAMBURGER, No. 11-15019
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-02189-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SUE RISENHOOVER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Harold B. Shamburger 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
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shamburger
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Nurse Risenhoover
knowingly failed to refer Shamburger to a doctor for, or otherwise treat, his back
pain and related symptoms. See id. at 1057 (prison officials act with deliberate
indifference only if they know of and consciously disregard an excessive risk to an
inmate’s health). Shamburger’s disagreement with defendant’s chosen course of
treatment is not sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference. See id. at 1058.
Denial of Shamburger’s motion for appointment of a medical expert was not
an abuse of discretion because he failed to establish that his sole claim against one
defendant involved scientific evidence or complex issues. See Fed. R. Evid. 706.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shamburger’s
motion for appointment of counsel because he failed to establish exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
Shamburger’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15019