Albert Young v. Peter Bresler

Ninth Circuit

Albert Young v. Peter Bresler

444 F. App'x 988

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 2011

Docket09-17690

StatusUnpublished

This text of 444 F. App'x 988 (Albert Young v. Peter Bresler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert Young v. Peter Bresler, 444 F. App'x 988 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Albert Young, 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 hepatitis C in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Summary judgment for defendants Brown and McArthur was proper because Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their failure to inform Young that he had hepatitis C and provide him treatment for his Hepatitis C caused or will cause Young further injury. See Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (a delay in medical treatment must lead to further injury to support a claim of deliberate indifference); see also Ochoa v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 159, 216 Cal.Rptr. 661, 703 P.2d 1, 10-14 (1985) (applying the same analytic framework to the plaintiffs claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs under the state and federal constitutions).

*989 The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Young’s request for appointment of new counsel after Young terminated his prior court-appointed counsel because Young failed to show “exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986) (setting forth the standard of review).

Young’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Young’s requests for appointment of counsel and an expert, set forth in his supplement to his opening brief, are denied.

Young’s request for judicial notice of his district court filings concerning his request to terminate counsel is denied as unnecessary because those filings are part of the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Albert Young, 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 hepatitis C in violation of his federal and state constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Summary judgment for defendants Brown and McArthur was proper because Young failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether their failure to inform Young that he had hepatitis C and provide him treatment for his Hepatitis C caused or will cause Young further injury. See Shapley v. Nev. Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (a delay in medical treatment must lead to further injury to support a claim of deliberate indifference); see also Ochoa v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 159, 216 Cal.Rptr. 661, 703 P.2d 1, 10-14 (1985) (applying the same analytic framework to the plaintiffs claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs under the state and federal constitutions).

*989 The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Young’s request for appointment of new counsel after Young terminated his prior court-appointed counsel because Young failed to show “exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986) (setting forth the standard of review).

Young’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Young’s requests for appointment of counsel and an expert, set forth in his supplement to his opening brief, are denied.

Young’s request for judicial notice of his district court filings concerning his request to terminate counsel is denied as unnecessary because those filings are part of the record.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 F. App'x 988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-young-v-peter-bresler-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack