Henry Desean Adams v. PAUL MANAUT, Dr.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRY DESEAN ADAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PAUL MANAUT, Dr.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DAVID O. LIVINGSTON; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 19-16884
D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00327-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Henry Desean Adams appeals pro se from the
* 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).
FILED
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-16884
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
inadequate medical care while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888
F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Adams failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant’s conduct in
the course of treating Adams was objectively unreasonable. See id. at 1124-25
(setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment
inadequate medical care claims brought by pretrial detainees).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Adams’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Adams failed to demonstrate “exceptional
circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. See Cano v. Taylor, 739
F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional
circumstances” requirements for appointment of counsel).
We reject as meritless Adams’s contention that the district court erred in its
treatment of Adams’s claims unrelated to his medical care.
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).
Adams’s opposed “motion to prevent irreparable harm” (Docket Entry No.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-16884
25) is denied. Adams’s request to supplement his opening brief with additional
evidence, set forth in the motion, is denied. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d
870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“We do not consider documents not presented to the
district court.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --