ADAM SHELTON, JR. V. GLEN CHORLEY, No. 11-16395 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADAM SHELTON, Jr., No. 11-16395 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00560-MHM v. MEMORANDUM * GLEN CHORLEY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 13, 2012 ** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Adam Shelton, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and 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. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim); White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501, 1503 (9th Cir. 1990) (summary judgment). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Shelton s excessive force claim because Shelton failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant acted maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm after Shelton refused an order to return to his cell. Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The district court properly dismissed Shelton s deliberate indifference claim because Shelton s conclusory allegations do not support his claim that defendant s actions constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See id. at 904 ( Deliberate indifference is evidenced only when the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . . . (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shelton s motions for appointment of counsel because Shelton failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting 2 11-16395 forth standard of review and requirement of exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel). AFFIRMED. 3 11-16395
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
