NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VALENTINO SOLIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WEST VALLEY DETENTION CENTER, 

Watch Commander, in his/her capacity; et 

al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56260 

D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01005-PSG-JEM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Valentino Solis appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional 

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 4 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-56260 

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) 

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Solis’s claims against West Valley 

Detention Center and High Desert Detention Center because Solis failed to allege 

facts sufficient to show that an official policy or custom deprived him of his 

constitutional rights. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073

(9th Cir. 2016) (“In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that 

a ‘policy or custom’ led to the plaintiff’s injury” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Solis’s deliberate indifference claim 

arising from treatment while Solis was a pretrial detainee at High Desert Detention 

Center because, under any applicable standard, Solis failed to allege facts sufficient 

to show that defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Solis’s health. 

See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A prison official acts 

with deliberate indifference . . . only if the [prison official] knows of and 

disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”); Lolli v. County of 

Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee’s claim of medical 

deliberate indifference is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process 

Clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment, but same standards apply); cf. 
3 16-56260 

Castro, 833 F.3d at 1067-71 (setting forth elements of Fourteenth Amendment 

failure-to-protect claim by pretrial detainee). 

The district court properly dismissed Solis’s failure-to-protect claim arising 

from the conduct of a classification officer at West Valley Detention Center 

because Solis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the defendant officer 

knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Solis’s safety. See Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent 

only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Solis’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.

AFFIRMED.