Boles v. Hill

Ninth Circuit

Boles v. Hill

324 F. App'x 594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 27, 2009

DocketNo. 07-35556

StatusPublished

This text of 324 F. App'x 594 (Boles v. Hill) 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

Boles v. Hill, 324 F. App'x 594 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Rickey N. Boles, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging delib[595]*595erate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Superintendent Jean Hill because Boles failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hill was personally involved in his medical care. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989).

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the remaining defendants because, assuming a serious medical need, Boles failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether these defendants were deliberately indifferent to his pectoral muscle injury. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (explaining that prison officials must know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm for their conduct to constitute deliberate indifference, and that a difference of medical opinion concerning treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boles’s request for appointment of counsel, see Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991), or by declining to appoint an expert witness, see Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.1999).

We deem abandoned Boles’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for discovery. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003) (deeming abandoned issues raised but not argued on appeal).

Boles’s request for appointment of counsel on appeal is denied.

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

**

Rickey N. Boles, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging delib[595]*595erate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Superintendent Jean Hill because Boles failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hill was personally involved in his medical care. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989).

Summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the remaining defendants because, assuming a serious medical need, Boles failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether these defendants were deliberately indifferent to his pectoral muscle injury. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (explaining that prison officials must know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm for their conduct to constitute deliberate indifference, and that a difference of medical opinion concerning treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boles’s request for appointment of counsel, see Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991), or by declining to appoint an expert witness, see Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.1999).

We deem abandoned Boles’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for discovery. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003) (deeming abandoned issues raised but not argued on appeal).

Boles’s request for appointment of counsel on appeal is denied.

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)

324 F. App'x 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boles-v-hill-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack