ARLANDIS WESLEY, AKA Superstar A. Wesley v. G. GREGORIO, Provider & Doctor at 4th Ave. Jail

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARLANDIS WESLEY, AKA Superstar A.
Wesley,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
G. GREGORIO, Provider & Doctor at 4th
Ave. Jail,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, M.C.S.O.; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-15050
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04031-ROS-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
* 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
MAY 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-15050
Arizona state prisoner Arlandis Wesley appeals pro se from the 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 Wesley
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant Gregorio’s
conduct in the course of treating Wesley 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 Wesley’s motion to
compel discovery because Wesley failed to meet and confer with Gregorio. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (motion to compel discovery must include certification
that movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with opposing
party); D. Ariz. L.R. Civ. 7.2(j) (setting forth meet-and-confer requirement prior to
bringing discovery motion); see also Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th
Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gregorio’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Gregorio failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-15050
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --