Schell v. Richards

Full title: Joseph Edward SCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe RICHARDS; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 20, 2001

14 F. App'x 915 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

14 Fed.Appx. 915 (9th Cir. 2001) Joseph Edward SCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe RICHARDS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-16849. D.C. No. CV-95-01783-SMM. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 20, 2001

Submitted July 9, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Pretrial detainee brought § 1983 action against county and county sheriff, alleging violation of Eighth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Stephen M. McNamee, J., entered summary judgment for county and sheriff. Pretrial detainee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) county and sheriff were not deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk to pretrial detainee's health or safety, and (2) district court did not abuse its discretion by denying pretrial detainee's motion for appointment of counsel.

Affirmed.

Page 916.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Joseph Edward Schell appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for Coconino County and the county sheriff in Schell's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights while he was a pretrial detainee in Coconino County jail. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

Summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper because Schell did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk to Schell's health or safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Schell's motion for appointment of counsel because Schell failed to show exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.