GUSTAVO PRIEGO V. SULLIVAN, No. 16-15722 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUSTAVO ADRIAN PRIEGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15722 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02366-JD v. MEMORANDUM* SULLIVAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Gustavo Adrian Priego 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 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Priego failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his wrist injury. See id. at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Priego’s motion for appointment of counsel because Priego failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Priego’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 31) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15722

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.