Bernard Houck v. Edward Sparks, Dds Theodore Jolley State of Arizona

81 F.3d 168 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Bernard HOUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward SPARKS, DDS; Theodore Jolley; State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-15166. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 26, 1996. * Decided March 29, 1996. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Bernard Houck, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's judgment, following a bench trial, in favor of prison medical staff in Houck's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Houck contends the district court erred by (1) finding that defendants did not act with deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and (2) refusing to appoint counsel for trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review a district court's factual findings for clear error, and its conclusions of law de novo. Brooker v. Desert Hosp. Corp., 947…