Craig Brian Cooper v. SYNTHIA SELY, Licensed Vocational Nurse at Pleasant Valley State Prison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG BRIAN COOPER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SYNTHIA SELY, Licensed Vocational
Nurse at Pleasant Valley State Prison,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-15655
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00544-AWI-
MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 21, 2015 **
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Craig Brian Cooper, a California state prisoner, 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
FILED
JUL 31 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cooper’s
deliberate indifference claim because Cooper failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendant was deliberately indifferent to his diabetes.
See id. at 1057-58, 1060 (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard; mistakes,
negligence, or malpractice by medical professionals are not sufficient to constitute
deliberate indifference, nor is a difference of opinion with the physician regarding
the appropriate course of treatment); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen.
Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To survive
summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific
facts . . . .”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Cooper’s state law
medical malpractice claim because Cooper failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether he was harmed by defendant’s referral to the clinic for
treatment of his diabetes. See Hanson v. Grode, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 396, 400 (Ct.
App. 1999) (setting forth elements of medical malpractice claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cooper’s motions
to appoint counsel because Cooper did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
14-15655 2

-- 2 of 3 --

See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of
review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
We reject as without merit Cooper’s contentions concerning the “willful
blindness” doctrine; the district court’s discovery decisions; and the district court’s
alleged failure to consider his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations.
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
or in the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Cooper’s request to take judicial notice, filed July 8, 2014, is granted. His
motion for appointment of counsel, filed May 27, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-15655 3

-- 3 of 3 --