RICHARD BURGOS V. ROBERT LONG, No. 14-15279 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-15279 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01906-JAM-AC v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT LONG; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2015** Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Former California state prisoner Richard Manuel Burgos 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, Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 * 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). F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Burgos failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether prison staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs with regard to his cell assignment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment . . . unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health[.]”). The district court acted within its discretion in denying Burgos’s motion to compel defendants to respond to his late discovery requests and in denying his motion to supplement his opposition to summary judgment with a declaration from another inmate. See Kulas v. Flores, 255 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review for a district court’s rulings concerning discovery and evidentiary issues). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Burgos’s motions to appoint counsel because Burgos did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel). Burgos’s challenge to the denial of his motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. 2 14-15279 Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of preliminary relief would have no practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot). AFFIRMED. 3 14-15279

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.