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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s the s e c a s e s a r e 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 J OS HU A T OL S MA, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. K I N G C O U N T Y ; J O H N D O E , 1 a nd 2, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N os . 11- 35549 11- 35601 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 4 8 9 - TSZ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on T hom a s S . Z i l l y , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J os huaT ol s m aappe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nti n hi s 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s a n d as ta te n e g lig e n c e c la im a r is in g f r o m a n a s s au lt a g a in s t h im b yaf e llo w p r e tr ia l d e ta in e e a t th e K in g C o u n ty



# FI LED NO V 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35549, 11- 35601 2 C orr e c t i ona l F a c i l i ty . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de n o v o , Sch. D ist. N

o. 1J, Mul tno m ah Cnt

y. , O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F . 3d 1255, 1258 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yg r a n t e d s u mma ryj u d g me n ta s t o To l s ma ’ s c l a i ms a ga i ns tthe D oe of

f i c e r s be c aus e T ol s m af

a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rth e o f

f ic e r s k n e w o f

a n d d is r e g a r d e d ar is kto h is h e a lth o rs a f e ty . See Farm e rv . B r e nnan , 51 1 U . S . 82 5, 83 7 (19 94 ) ( a pri son o ff i ci al c a nnotbe f

ound l i abl e f

orf a i l i ng t o pr ot e c tone i nm a t e f r om a nothe r“ unl e s s the offi ci al kn ow s of and di sr egar ds an exces si ve ri sk t o i nm at e hea l th o r s af ety” ); C ou si ns v. L ocky er , 5 6 8 F .3 d 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 7 0 - 7 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t a vi ol a t i on of

apr i s on r e gul a t i on doe s note s t abl i s h ac ons t i tut i ona l vi ol a t i on, a nd c o n c lu d in g th a t f

u rth e rd is c o v e ryo n D o e d e f e n d a n ts ’ id e n titie s w o u ld b e f u tile w h e r e p la in tif

f f a ile d to e s tab lis h ac o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n ) ; W i ns ton v . D e

p’ t of C o rr. , 1 2 1 P .3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 2 - 0 3 ( W a s h . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “I n o r d e rto h o ld th e S ta te l i abl e f ori nj uryt o one i nm a t e i nf l i c t e d bya nothe ri nm a t e , the r e m us tbe pr oof of know l e dge on the pa rtof pr i s on of

f i c i a l s tha ts uc h a n i nj uryw i l l be i nf l i c t e d, or good r e a s on t o a nt i c i pa t e s uc h, a nd the n the r e m us tbe as how i ng of ne gl i ge nc e on the partof these offi ci al s i n fai l i ng t o p re ventthe i nj ury. ”) .11- 35549, 11- 35601 3 Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yg r a n t e d s u mma ryj u d g me n ta s t o To l s ma ’ s c l a i ms a ga i ns tK i ng C ountybe c aus e T ol s m af a i l e d t o s how tha tthe of f i c e r s ’ a c t i ons r e s u lte d in h is in

ju r ie s . Se e J

ac k s on v . C i t

yof B r e m e r ton , 268 F . 3d 646, 653- 54 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “N e ith e ram u n ic ip a lityn o ras u p e rv is o r. . . c a n b e h e ld liab le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 w h e r e n o . . . c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n h a s o c c u rr e d .” ) ; W i ns ton , 121 P .3 d a t 1 2 0 2 - 0 3 ( e x p la in in g r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rf a ilu r e - to - p r o te c t n e g lig e n c e c la im a g a in s t p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng T ol s m a ’ s m ot i ons un der F ed. R . C i v. P . 59 and 6 0 b ec ause T ol sm a f ai l ed t o sho w thatthe di stri ct c o u rt o v e r lo o k e d o n e o f h is c la im s in e rr o r . See F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (a ) ( r e c ons i de r a t i on i s appr opr i a t e t o c orr e c t“ am i s t a ke a r i s i ng f r om ove r s i ghtor o m is s io n ” ) ; Sc h. D is t. N o. 1J , 5 F . 3d at12 62 -63 (se tt i ng forth st andard of revi ew for deni al of R ul e 59 and 60 m ot i on s, and st at i ng that , un der R ul e 59(e), r e c o n s id e r a tio n is ap p r o p r ia te if th e r e w a s “c le a re rr o r ” ) . AF F I RME D.