852 F.2d 572
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Norris NOBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Edwin MCGEE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 13, 1988.
Decided July 5, 1988.*
Before BROWNING, HUG, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Norris Noble, pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of various Arizona Department of Corrections employees (the "defendants") in his suit for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Noble contends that the defendants failed to treat timely and adequately his hemorrhoidal problems. He contends that this constituted deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976).
Noble requests appointment of counsel. The court "may request" counsel to assist an indigent appellant in a civil action in exceptional cases. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986). In deciding whether exceptional circumstances exist, the court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir.1985). This is not an exceptional case, nor are there complex legal issues involved; thus, Noble's request is denied.
The judgment is affirmed. Noble was provided with significant and prolonged medical care for his condition. Any delay in treatment was at least partially due to Noble's actions in not following prison procedures, and does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Commissioners, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir.1985). See also Franklin v. State of Oregon State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981) (difference of opinion between prisoner-patient and prison doctors about treatment does not give rise to a section 1983 claim); Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir.1980) (mere "indifference," "negligence," or "medical malpractice" will not support a cause of action).