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 R E O B OR E N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. B O C C A , W a r d e n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N os . 11- 15990, 11- 16070 D. C . No . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 1 7 4 - L R HV PC 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

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 S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C L IF T O N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In these consol i dat ed appeal s, form erN evada s t at e pri soner R eo B oren appe a l s pr o s e f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on al l egi ng exce ss i ve force , conspi ra cy , and u ncon st i tut i on alcond i t i on s- of

# FI LED SEP 25 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 15990 2 c onf i ne m e ntc l a i m s . 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 . T oguc hiv . Chung , 39 1 F . 3d 10 51 , 10 56 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( sum m ary ju d g m e n t) ; W

y at t v . T e rhune , 315 F . 3d 1108, 1117 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( di s m i s s a l f or f a ilu r e to e x h au s t) ; B arr e n v . H arr i ngton , 152 F . 3d 1193, 1194 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( o r d e r ) ( d i s mi s s a l u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ygr a nt e d s um m a ryj udgm e nton B or e n’ s e xc e s s i ve f o r c e c la im b e c au s e B o r e n f a ile dto 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 defe nd ant s a ct ed m al i ci ou sl y or s adi st i ca l l y t o cause harm w hen re stra i ni ng hi m du ri ng the Jul y 5, 20 07 i nci dent , or es cort i ng hi m t o the i nfi rm ary a f te rw a r d s . Se e H

uds on v . McMi l l i an , 50 3 U . S . 1, 6-7 (19 92 ) ( core j ud i ci ali nq ui ry in d e te rm in in g e x c e s s iv e p h y s ic a l f o r c e in v io la tio n o f

E ig h th A m e n d m e n t is w he the rf

or c e w a s appl i e d i n good- f a i th e f f ortt o m a i nt a i n orr e s t or e di s c i pl i ne , or m al i ci ou sl y and sa di st i ca l l y t o cause harm ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dB o r e n ’s c o n s p ir a c yc la im f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im . See I

ve y v . B d. of

R egent s of the U ni v. of A laska , 673 F . 2d 266, 268 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ( v a g u e a n dc o n c lu s o rya lle g a tio n s o f o f f ic ia l p a rtic ip a tio n in c iv il ri gh t s vi ol at i on s are no tsuff i ci entt o w i thst and d i sm i ss al ).11- 15990 3 T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y d i sm i ssedw i th o u tp rej u d i ce B o ren ’ s co n d i t i o n so f - c o n f in e m e n t c la im b e c au s e B o r e n f a ile dto e x h au s t a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . Se e W oodf ord v . N go , 54 8 U . S . 81 , 85 , 93 -95 (20 06 ) ( ho l di ng that“ prop er exhaust i on ” i s m andat ory and re qu i re s a dh er ence t o adm i ni stra t i ve procedural rul es ). 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 B or e n’ s m ot i ons f or appo i ntm entof coun se l because B oren fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e e xcept i on al c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See P alm erv. V aldez , 560 F . 3d 965, 970 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( s e tt i ng f orth s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w a nd r e qui r e m e ntof “ e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s ” f or appo i ntm entof coun se l ). B oren’ s c on t ent i on s r egar di ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s a l l eged procedural errors and b i as ar e unp er suas i ve. W e do n otconsi der the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni alof B oren’ s r equestfor a p r e lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n to p r e s e rv e e v id e n c e b e c au s e B o r e n d idn o t r a is e it in h is o p e n in g b r ie f

. 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 curi am ). AF F I RME D.