Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0705-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lamont SHEPARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P. MUNOZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-17219.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 25, 2014.
    
    Filed July 3, 2014.
    Lamont Shepard, Delano, CA, pro se.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Lamont Shepard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with inappropriate touching while he was being escorted back to his cell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). 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 Shepard’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant P. Munoz because Shepard failed to allege facts showing that P. Munoz’s conduct objectively established a constitutional violation. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[N]ot every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Shepard’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendants C. Munoz and Campos because Shepard failed to allege facts showing that these defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (a prison official cannot be found liable for failing to protect an inmate “unless the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate ... safety”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Shepard’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims without leave to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We construe the dismissal of the state law claims to be without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.1994).

We reject Shepard’s contention that the district court dismissed Shepard’s action as a favor to defendants.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.