Sayiden Hussein Mohamed v. BELLINGER, Nurse Supervisor; STEWART ANDREWS, M.D.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAYIDEN HUSSEIN MOHAMED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BELLINGER, Nurse Supervisor;
STEWART ANDREWS, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35710
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01669-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sayiden Hussein Mohamed, a former inmate at Snohomish County Jail,
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 need. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
* 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
OCT 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-35710
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the
record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
Summary judgment was proper because under any potentially applicable
standard, Mohamed failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mohamed’s health. See
Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (neither a prisoner’s difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in treating a medical
condition amounts to deliberate indifference); Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d
410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee’s claim of medical deliberate
indifference is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
rather than under the Eighth Amendment, but same standards apply); see also
Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)
(setting forth elements of Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim by
pretrial detainee).
Denial of Mohamed’s motion for appointment of counsel was proper
because Mohamed failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v.
Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and
exceptional circumstances requirement for appointment of counsel).
We reject Mohamed’s contention that he should have been appointed an

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-35710
interpreter because Mohamed did not make such a request before the district court.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --