NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES JAMIL GARRETT, No. 19-15552

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00259-LJO-JDP v.

MEMORANDUM* NGOZI IGBINOSA, Medical Department, CSATF,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner James Jamil Garrett 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 and retaliation. We have jurisdiction

*

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). under 28 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 Garrett’s deliberate indifference claim because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Igbinosa was deliberately indifferent to Garrett’s Valley Fever and pain and mobility issues by continuing to prescribe fluconazole. See id. at 1060-61 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrett’s retaliation claim because Garrett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. Igbinosa’s medical treatment constituted an adverse action. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Garrett’s motions for appointment of counsel because Garrett 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

2 appointment of counsel).

AFFIRMED.

3