Rodney Orr v. Tracy Selves;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY ORR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TRACY SELVES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35082
D.C. No. 6:12-cv-01273-KI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rodney Orr, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety in failing to protect him from
FILED
MAR 27 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 --

being poisoned by other inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062,
1074 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Orr failed to
raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to Orr’s safety from food poisoning by other inmates.
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 . . . safety [.]”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding defendants’ motion
for summary judgment without conducting a hearing. See Willis v. Pac. Mar.
Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (district courts have discretion to
decide motions without oral argument); see also D. Or. L. R. 7-1(d)(1) (explaining
that motions are decided without oral argument “unless the Court determines that
oral argument would help it resolve the matter.”).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Orr’s motion
for appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and discussing the “exceptional circumstances”
14-35082 2

-- 2 of 3 --

requirement).
We reject as unsupported Orr’s contentions regarding conspiracy, placement
in the Special Management and Mental Health Unit, and forced medication.
We do not consider the declaration of Orr’s mother and the documents
relating to Orr’s evidence confiscation argument, attached as exhibits to his reply
brief, because they were not presented to the district court. See United States v.
Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the
district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
14-35082 3

-- 3 of 3 --