Raymond Manzanillo v. Francisco Jacquez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RAYMOND J. MANZANILLO, No. 12-17307
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03783-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Raymond J. Manzanillo appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations stemming from defendants’ response to Manzanillo’s
altercation with another inmate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Manzanillo’s claim concerning
defendant Graves’s alleged failure to videotape an interview with Manzanillo in
violation of prison policy because that alleged failure does not constitute a
violation of a federal right. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir.
2009) (alleged failure to follow prison policy does not establish federal
constitutional violation).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Manzanillo’s
claim alleging that defendants failed adequately to investigate his excessive force
claims in violation of prison policy because that alleged failure does not constitute
a violation of a federal right. See id.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Manzanillo’s
claim alleging that defendants Zucco and Potter used excessive force against him
because Manzanillo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
those defendants used force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing
harm. See Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986) (excessive force inquiry
“ultimately turns on whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or
2 12-17307
restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing
harm” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Manzanillo’s
claim alleging that defendant Klotz was deliberately indifferent to Manzanillo’s
serious medical needs because Manzanillo failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether Klotz knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to
Manzanillo’s health. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057-58 (prison official is
deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk
to an inmate’s health).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Manzanillo’s
supervisory liability claims against defendants Jacquez, Lewis, and McLean
because Manzanillo failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
those defendants were personally involved in any constitutional violation or
whether there was a causal connection between their conduct and any such
violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the
requirements for establishing supervisory liability).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Manzanillo’s
discovery requests because the requested discovery would not have helped
Manzanillo prove a viable claim. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926, 930 (9th
3 12-17307
Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that summary judgment
is appropriate, even in the face of additional discovery requests, where “such
discovery would be ‘fruitless’ with respect to the proof of a viable claim” (citation
omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Manzanillo’s
motion for appointment of counsel because Manzanillo failed to demonstrate
exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.
2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances”
requirement).
Manzanillo’s motions to supplement the record, filed on September 30,
2013, and October 28, 2013, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
4 12-17307