Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by a state prisoner challenging the district court's summary judgment in favor of a prison official in a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claim. The prisoner alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs but was unable to provide evidence against the official responsible for his care. The court affirmed the summary judgment, noting the absence of contrary evidence. The appeal also addressed the dismissal of claims against other defendants due to lack of proper service, which led to a jurisdictional defect. The prisoner’s motions for recusal of the presiding judge and appointment of counsel were also denied. The court held that recusal was unwarranted as the alleged bias was not from extrajudicial sources. The denial of counsel was justified by the low likelihood of success and the non-complex nature of the legal issues. Furthermore, the appellate court upheld the previous denial of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The decision adheres to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 concerning the citation of unpublished dispositions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Appointment of Counsel under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed denial of counsel, noting no exceptional circumstances as the claims had a low likelihood of success and were not complex.
Reasoning: The court found Dumler's claims had a low likelihood of success and the legal issues were not complex, indicating no exceptional circumstances existed to justify counsel appointment.
Denial of Motion for Recusalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews recusal denials for abuse of discretion, requiring bias from extrajudicial sources, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Reasoning: The court reviews such denials for abuse of discretion, noting that recusal is warranted only if bias arises from extrajudicial sources, not from judicial actions or rulings.
Denial of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of Dumler's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was affirmed based on previous rulings.
Reasoning: Additionally, Dumler's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was also denied, with that ruling affirmed in a previous case.
Non-Precedential Nature of Unpublished Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 states that unpublished dispositions are not to be cited except under specific doctrines.
Reasoning: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 stipulates that unpublished dispositions are non-precedential and should not be cited, except in specific legal doctrines.
Service of Process Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Claims against additional defendants were dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate proper service, leading to a lack of jurisdiction.
Reasoning: However, the court clarifies that proper service is required for jurisdiction, and Dumler failed to demonstrate service on any defendants other than Maass, leading to the dismissal of those claims.
Summary Judgment under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld summary judgment for the defendant, as the plaintiff failed to present evidence countering the affidavit that the defendant was not responsible for medical care.
Reasoning: Regarding the summary judgment in favor of Maass, the court finds Dumler did not provide evidence countering Maass's affidavit that he was not responsible for Dumler's medical care.