N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C UR TIS S. THOM PSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. OFFIC E R

B UR AC H, King C o unty

Ja i l; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-35126 D.C . No. 2:05-c v-02064-JLR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 12, 2013 ** B e fore : PREGER SON, REINHAR DT, a n d W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s. C urtis S. Thom

pson, a W a shington sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt a

nd judgm e nt following a be nc h tria l in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging e xc e ssive forc e . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 

# FIL ED MAR 22 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo a dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B ), Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir.1998) (orde r), and sum m ary judgm e nt, Toguc hi v

C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s c onc l usions of la w a n d for c le ar e rror its findings of fac t following a

be n c h tria l. One

Be ac on Ins. C

o. v . Haas Indus., Inc . , 634 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th C ir. 2011). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord, Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Thom

pson’ s c la im s a ga inst the supe rvisory

de fe nda nts be c a use Thom pson fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts de m onstra ting the i r pe rsona l involve m e nt in a ny c onstitutiona

l viola tion or a c a u sa l c o nne c tion be twe e n the ir c onduc t a

nd a ny suc h viola

tion. S e eStarr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ A de fe nda nt m ay be he l d lia

ble a s a supe rvisor under § 1983 if there e xists e i the r (1) his or he r pe rsona l involve m e nt in the c onstitutiona

l de priva tion, or (2) a

suffic ie nt c a

usa l c onne c tion be twe e n the supe rvisor’ s wrongful c onduc t a nd the c onstitutiona

l viola tion.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Thom

pson’ s c la im s a ga inst theSe attle Polic e De pa

rtm e nt, King C o unty

Prose c utor’ s Offic e , a

nd the King C o unty Ja il a lle ging m

unic ipa l lia

bility be c a use Thom pson did not a

lle g e fa c ts de m onstra

ting 1 2 - 3 5 1 2 6 2that

de fe n da nts’ a c tions we re the re sult of a n offic ia l polic y

or c ustom . Se eMone ll v . De p’t of Soc . Se rv

s. , 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d Thom

pson’ s c la im s a ga inst prose c utors in his c rim ina l proc e e dings on the ba sis of prose c utoria l im m unity . S e eImble r v . Pac htman , 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (prose c utors a re e ntitle d to a

bsoluteim

m unity unde r § 1983 for “ initia

ting a prose c ution a

nd . . . pre se nting theState ’ s c a se ” ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt a s to de fe n da

nt Higa be c a use Thom pson fa ile d to ra i se a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r it wa s not obje c tive l y

re a sona ble for Higa

to hit him

with a fla shlight to e ffe c tuate his arre st. Se eGraham v . C

onnor , 490 U.S. 386, 395-97 (1989) (se tting forth the obje c tive re a sona

ble ne ss sta

nda rd). To the e xte nt tha

t Thom pson c ha l le nge s the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of le av e to a m e nd his c om

pla int to a d d the se c ond a rre sting offic e r, the distric t

c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion be c a

use it ha d a lre a d

y de te rm i ne d tha

t Thom pson’ s rights ha d not be e n viola te d. S e e Think e t Ink Info. Re s., Inc . v . Sun Mic rosy

ste ms, Inc . , 368 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th C ir. 2004) (dism i ssa l without le ave to a m e nd is prope r whe re the c om pla i nt c annot besa

ve d by any am e ndm e nt). De nia l of judgm e nt for Thom pson following the be nc h tria l wa s prope r be c a use Thom pson fa ile d to de m onstra

te by a pre ponde ranc e of the e v ide nc e tha t 1 2 - 3 5 1 2 6 3the re m a ining de fe nda nts use d e xc e ssive forc e whe n the y atte m pte d to re stra in a

nd subdue Thom

pson with the use of pe ppe r spra y and c ounte r-joint te c hnique s. Se e Graham , 490 U.S. a

t 395-97. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Thom

pson’ s m otion to a

ppoint c ounse l be c a

use Thom pson fa ile d to show e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se ePalme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd re quire m e nt of “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta n c e s” for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Thom

pson’ s m otion for re c usa l. Se eTay lor v . Re ge n ts of the

Univ . of C

al. , 993 F.2d 710, 712- 13 (9th C ir. 1993) (pe r c uriam ) (a pply ing a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd of re vie w and noting tha

t a dve rse rulings alone are insuffic ie nt to de m onstra te judic i a l bia s). Thom pson’ s c onte ntions tha

t the distric t

c o urt e rre d in de ny ing his motions to c o m pe l disc ove ry , in its e vide ntia ry rulings, a nd in its tria

l m ana ge m e nt de c isions, a

re unpe rsua sive . AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 5 1 2 6 4