N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

R IC HARD GILB ER T GAR C IA,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-55821 D.C . No. 5:13-c v-00112-TJH-DTB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Te rry J. Ha tte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 6, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd EZR A , ** Distric t Judge
. R ic ha rd Ga rc ia a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to the Unite d Sta te s on his c la im s for batte ry , a s sa ult, inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre s s, a nd ne glige nc e brought unde r the Fe de ra l Tort C la im s Ac t a nd a rising out 

# F IL ED
APR 11 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion.of Ga

rc ia ’ s de te ntion by

C ustom s a

nd B orde r Pa trol (“ C B P” ) offic e rs a t the Te c a te Port of Entry

in 2010. B e c a

use Ga rc ia , a pa ra ple gic , ha s pre se nte d

e vide nc e suffic i e nt to c re a te a g e nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r C B P offic e rs
ne glige ntly

de n i e d him

use of a bathroom

while he wa s de ta ine d for a pproxim a te ly te n hours a

nd le ft him t o sit in his own urine and e x c re m e nt during m

uc h of tha t pe riod of tim e , we R E V E RSE the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to gra nt sum m a ry judgm e nt on Ga

rc ia ’ s ne glige nc e c la i m

and RE M AND to the distric t c ourt. W e AFFIRMthe distric t

c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to the Unite d State s on Garc ia ’ s othe r c la i m s. 1. On a m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt, “ [t] h e e vide nc e of the non-m ova nt is to be be l ie ve d, a

nd a ll justifia

ble infe re nc e s a

re to be drawn in his fa

vor.” Ande rson v . Libe rty

Lobby , Inc

. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Ga rc ia ha s pre se nte d
e vide nc e tha

t he re pe ate dly a s ke d to use the bathroom and to spe a k to a

supe rvisor
a bout his ne e d for a ssista

nc e in using the

bat hroom
. In Ga

rc ia ’ s de position, he sta te d tha t he e xplic itly

a ske d to use the re s troom a t le a s t thre e tim e s: he a ske d a C B P offic e r if he c ould use the bathroom a t 5 or 6 p.m ., he a ga in a ske d a C B P offic e r a round 9 p.m
. , a

n d he told a

n offic e r of the B ure a

u of Alc ohol, Toba c c o, Fire arm s , a

nd Explosive s (“ ATF” ) that he ne e d e d to use the bathroom be fore tha t offic e r be ga

n inte rroga ting him

a t a pproxim a te l y 10:45 p.m
. 2Garc ia furthe r state d tha t , whe n it be c a m e c le ar that he c ould not use the ba throom within his holding c e ll be c a use it wa s not whe e lc h a ir a c c e s sible , he and the C B P offic e r a g re e d tha t Ga rc ia would ne e d to spe a k to a supe rvisor. Ga

rc ia
a lso sa id in his de

position tha

t he the n a s ke d the offic e r to le t him spe a k to a supe rvisor a

t le a s t five or six tim e s but tha t no supe rvisor e ve r a

ppe are d to spe a k with him a

bout his ne e d s. Ga

rc ia furthe r state d tha

t , a s a re sult of be i ng de n ie d use of an a c c e ssible bathroom an d a ssista nc e in c l e aning a

nd c ha nging him se l f, his skin be c a m e raw from

e xte nde d c onta c t

with his urine and fe c e s. He a l so sa id tha t whe n the drie d e xc re m e n t wa s re m ove d from

his body a t the hospita l, it tore his skin a nd c a use d him t o ble e d, a

nd tha t he spe nt a we e k in the hospita l a nd took thre e m onths to m ostly

re c ove r. 2. B a se d on Ga

rc i a ’ s e vide nc e , sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the Unite d Sta t e s is not a

ppropria t e on his ne glige n c e c la i m be c a u se a re a sona ble jury c ould
c onc lude tha

t C B P a nd ATF offic e rs a c te d unre a sona bly by de ny ing Ga

rc ia ’ s
re que s ts to use an a c c e ssible b athroom , fa iling to ta k e any ste ps to a c c om

m o da te his ne e d for a ssista

n c e in c le aning a

nd c ha nging him se lf, a

nd be ginning a

le ngthy inte rroga tion a fte r finding out tha t Ga rc ia wa s sitting in a

soile d a d ult dia p e r. Garc ia ha s not, howe ve r, pre se nte d e vide n c e to survive sum

m ary judgm e nt on his the o ry tha t C B P a nd ATF offic e rs a c te d unre a sona bly in c uffing his ha

nds a nd le gs
3to a gurne y

while he wa s be ing tra

nsporte d in a

n am bula nc e to the hospita l. Ga

rc ia ha s provide d no e vide nc e tha t he m a de offic e rs a

ware tha t c u ffing him

to the gurne y would c a use him injury , pre ve nt him from ly ing c om forta

bly , or im pa ir his
a bility to prote c t him s e lf from

bounc ing a

round during the a m

bula nc e ride
. B e c a use the offic e rs we re not a ware of this risk, we

c annot c onc lude tha

t the offic e rs a c te d unre a sona

bly in e m ploy ing ha

ndc uffs during tra

nsporta tion. 3. W e do not c onside r Garc ia ’ s a ssa u lt c l a im be c a use he wa i ve d it be fore this c ourt by m e re ly

“ de fe rr[ing] ” to the argum e nts c ounse l ha d ra ise d be low. Se e Unite d State s v . Graf , 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ Argum e nts m a de in pa ssing a nd not supporte d by

c ita tions to the

re c ord or to c a se a

uthority are ge ne ra lly de e m e d wa ive d .” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly gran t e d sum m ary judgm e nt to the Unite d State s on Ga rc ia ’ s re m a ining c la im s: On his ba tte ry c la im , Garc ia ha s not provide d an y

a uthority for tre a ting e xposure to his own urine and fe c e s a s the ty

pe of “ o ffe nsive c onta c t” re quire d to m a ke out a prim a fa c ie ba tte ry
c la im
. Se e Brow n v . Ransw e ile r , 171 C a l. App. 4th 516, 526-27 (2009). His othe r the o ry of batte ry , whic h

re late s to his tra

nsfe r to the a m

bula nc e and be ing c uffe d to the g urne y

fa ils for la c k of e vide nc e suffic ie nt to survive sum m ary judgm e nt. On his c la i m for inte ntiona l inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss, Ga rc ia fa ile d to provide
e vide nc e tha

t the C B P a nd ATF offic e rs inflic te d injury upon him

inte ntiona lly

a s
4oppose d to ne glige ntly
. S e e Te k le v . Unite d State

s , 511 F.3d 839, 855 (9th C ir. 2006). For the a bove sta te d re a sons, we RE V E RSE and RE M AND the distric t
c ourt’ s de c ision gra

nting theUnite d

Sta te s’ s m otion for sum

m ary judgm e n t on Garc ia ’ s ne glige nc e c la im and AFFIRMthe distric t c ourt’ s de c ision gra nting
sum m ary judgm e nt on the othe r c la im s. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l.

5