T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I CHAEL M . M ARTI NEZ, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. M A X W I L L I A M S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 35115 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 5 8 0 - ST ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l W . M os m a n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J ul y 17, 2012 ** Be f o r e : SCH RO ED ER, TH O M A S, an d S IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F orm e rO r e gon s t a t e pr i s one rM i c ha e l M . M a rt i ne z appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng const i tut i on al vi ol at i on s i n con nect i on w i th a pri son g uard’ s s ho ot i ng of M art i nez d u r in g ap r is o n y a r d r io t. W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e 

# FI LED JU L 23 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35115 2 r e v ie w d e n o v o , D a

yv . Ap o lio n a , 61 6 F . 3d 91 8, 92 4 (9th C i r. 20 10 ), and w e m ay a f f irm o n a n y g r o u n d s u p p o rte d b y th e r e c o r d , T hom ps on v . P aul , 547 F . 3d 1055, 1 0 5 8 - 5 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l y gr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o W i l l i a m s a nd N o o th b e c au s e M a rtin e z f a ile d to r a is e ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w hether e i ther w as “ pers on al l y i nv ol ved i n the depri vat i on of hi s c i vi l ri gh t s. ” B arr e n v . H

arr i ngton , 1 5 2 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( o r d e r ) . T o the ext entthatM art i nez a l l eges thatW i l l i am s and N oo th are l i abl e bas ed on thei r prom ul gat i on or i m pl em ent at i on of an un const i tut i on al use- of-f orce po l i cy , sum m ary j ud gm entw as prop erbecause M art i nez has fa i l ed t o rai se a ge nui ne di s put e of

m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rthe O r e gon D e pa rtm e ntof C orr e c t i ons ’ pol i c y i s “ s o de f i c i e nttha tthe pol i c y i t s e l f i s ar e pudi a t i on of const i tut i on al ri gh t s and i s the m ov i ng forc e of the const i tut i on al vi ol at i on . ” R e dm an v . C ount

yof San D i ego , 94 2 F . 2d 14 35 , 14 46 (9th C i r. 19 91 ) ( en banc) ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ; Je f f er s v . G om ez , 267 F . 3d 895, 91 5 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( fi nd i ng a s i m i l arpo l i cyt o b e c on st i tut i on al ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so p ro p erl y g ran t ed F l et ch er q u al i fi ed i m m u n i ty b ecau se a “ re as on abl e off

i ci al st andi ng w here [F l et cher ] w as st andi ng ” c ou l d b el i eve that shoo t i ng an i nm at e t o “ st op an as saul tthatcoul d h ave s er i ou sl y i nj ured or ki l l ed11- 35115 3 another i nm at e w as a goo d fai th eff ortt o res t ore order, and thu s l aw ful . ” M arqu ez v. G ut i errez , 32 2 F . 3d 68 9, 69 3 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). M art i nez’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s, i ncl ud i ng tho se concerni ng the al l eged defi ci enci es of hi s c ou rt -app oi nt ed coun se l , ar e unp er suas i ve. AF F I RME D.