Puckett v. Moreno, et al.

Sep 1, 2026
25-3622

MEMORANDUM*

California state prisoner Durrell Anthony Puckett appeals pro se from the district court‘s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Puckett failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Puckett. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (setting forth elements of a failure-to-protect claim); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (“If a [prison official] should have been aware of the risk but was not, then the [official] has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.“).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Puckett‘s motion for appointment of counsel because Puckett did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

Notes

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).