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. 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 F R E DE R I C K L OU I S WAR D, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. G E M M A G R E E N E W A L D R O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 17685 D. C . No . 3 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 3 0 6 - L R HR AM ME MOR AN DU M *

F R E DE R I C K L OU I S WAR D, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. G O M E Z ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 15476 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 0 0 7 - RCJ - V PC

A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L a rryR . H i c ks , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng R obe rtC . J one s , C hi e f

Judge , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED JU L 12 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s the s e appe a l s a r e s ui t abl e f or ** d e c is io n w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 10- 17685 2 S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d appe a l s , F r e de r i c k L oui s W ar d appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt s di s m i s s i ng hi s a c t i ons a r i s i ng outof a l l e ge d e xc e s s i ve f o r c e a n dd e n i a l o f

a d e q u a t e me d i c a l c ar e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . R es ni ck v. H ayes , 213 F . 3d 443, 447 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( d is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A ) ; Kn i e v e l v . ES PN, 3 9 3 F .3 d1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( d i s mi s s a l u n d e rFe d . R. Ci v . P. 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d the c l a i m s a ga i ns tW a l dr on and the C i ty of S park defendant s bec ause W ar d fai l ed t o al l ege f ac t s s uffi ci entt o sho w that defe nd ant s c on spi re d t o v i ol at e W ar d’ s c on st i tut i on alri gh t s or thatW al dron w as a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f

s ta te law . See O l

se n v. Idah o S tate B d. of Med . , 363 F . 3d 91 6, 92 9 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( “ T o st at e acl ai m for c on spi ra cyt o v i ol at e c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s, the pl ai nt i ff

m ustst at e s peci fi c f

ac t s t o sup po rtthe exi st ence of the cl ai m ed c o n s p ir a c y .” ( c ita tio n a n din te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) ) ; S im m o n s v . Sa c ra m e n to Cn ty . Su p e r . C t. , 31 8 F . 3d 11 56 , 11 61 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( concl usory a l l egat i on s that a tt orne yw a s c ons pi r i ng w i th s t a t e of f i c e r s a r e i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o s upporta§ 198310- 17685 3 cl ai m ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bygr ant i ng de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o s tr i ke doc um e nt s W a r d pe r s ona l l yf i l e d w hi l e he w a s s t i l l r e pr e s e nt e d by c o u n s e l. See H

am ble ton B r os . L um be rC o. v . B alki n E nte rs . I nc . , 397 F . 3d 1217, 1 2 2 4 n .4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( s ta tin g s tan d ar do f r e v ie w ) . W e do n otconsi der m att er s notspec i fi ca l l y and di st i nct l y r ai se d and ar gu ed i n the ope ni ng br i e f

, nora r gum e nt s a nd a l l e ga t i ons r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l. Se e P adge t t

v . W r i ght , 58 7 F . 3d 98 3, 98 5 n . 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( per c uri am ). W ar d’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A l l pe ndi ng m ot i ons a r e de ni e d. AF F I RME D.