NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY M. LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. J. CASTRO; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15870
D.C. No. 3:18

- cv - 00091

- RCJ

- VPC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 15, 2019 **
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Johnny M. Lawrence appeals pro se from the distri ct court’ s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during an arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Sprewell v. Gol den State

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 15870

Warriors , 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Lawrence’s excessive force claim
because the video recording of the incident Lawrenc e attached to the complaint contradicts Lawrence’s allegations made in the complaint t hat defendants used an
unreasonable amount of force during his arrest

. See Espinosa v. City & Cty

. of San
Francisco , 598 F.3d 528, 537 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth factors for determining
whether exce ssive force was used in arres t); S prewell , 266 F.3d at 988 (court need not accept as true alle gations that contradict documents or exhibits attached to the complaint , or allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences).
The district court properly dismissed Lawrence’ s conspiracy, failure

- to

protect , and failure

- to

- train claims because Lawrence failed to allege facts
sufficient to show a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Flores v. County of Los Angeles , 758 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014) (to state a failure

- to

- train claim, plaintiff must show that the official “was deliberately indifferent to the need to train subordinates, and the lack of training actually caused the constitutional harm or deprivation of rights”); Cunning ham v. Gates , 229 F.3d 1271, 1289 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[P]olice officers have a duty to intercede when their fellow officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other citizen.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ); Giannini v. Real , 911 F.2d 354, 359 (9th Cir. 1990)3 18

- 15870

(deprivation of federal constitutional rights is a necessary ele m ent of the alleged conspiracy); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter , accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its di scretion by denying Lawrence’s Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) motion because Lawrence failed to establish an y basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc ., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)). We reject as unsupported by the record Lawrence’s cont ention that the district court judge was biased.
AFFIRMED.