JOSE MORALES V. ROBERT HOREL, No. 11-15809 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 27 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS MORALES, No. 11-15809 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-04441-PJH v. MEMORANDUM * ROBERT A. HOREL, Warden; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Morales, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Pompan, Risenhoover, and Duncan because Morales failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants treatment of Morales s right knee constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1057-58 (deliberate indifference occurs when the prison official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate s health and safety; a mere disagreement between a prisoner and medical personnel over the proper course of treatment fails to establish deliberate indifference). Morales does not challenge the dismissal of the other defendants named in his original complaint. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morales s motion for appointment of counsel because Morales failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and exceptional circumstances requirement). Morales s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. The district court did not mention Morales s state law claim in the order granting summary judgment. We deem the state law claims to have been dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). AFFIRMED. 2 11-15809
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.
