Geraldine Darden v. Mohammed Arain

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Geraldine Kelley Darden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Darden’s action because Darden did not allege facts showing that defendant acted with deliberate indifference when performing the lumpectomy or responding to Darden’s medical needs. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-58, 1060 (9th Cir.2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard, and it is met only if the defendant knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health and safety; mistakes, negligence or malpractice do not rise to an Eighth Amendment violation).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Darden’s motion for appointment of counsel because Darden failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See…