N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LAM ONT SHEPAR

D, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. P. M UNOZ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17219 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-01470-GSA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gary S. Austin, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d June 25, 2014 *** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Lam ont Shepa rd a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing Eighth 

# FIL ED JUL 03 2014 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. ** She pa

rd c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** 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).Am e ndm e nt viola tions in c onne c tion with ina ppropria te touc hing whilehe wa s be ing e sc orte d ba c k to his c e l l. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a

dismissa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1915A and 1915(e )(2). Re

snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000); B arre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d She p ard’ s Eighth Ame ndm e nt c la im a ga inst de fe nda

nt P . M unozbe c a

use She pa

rd fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts showing tha t P . M unoz ’ s c onduc t obje c tive ly e sta blishe d a c onstitutiona

l viola tion. Se eW

a tison v . C arte r , 668 F .3d 1 108, 1 1 12-14 (9th C ir . 2012) (“ [N] ot e ve ry m a le vole nt touc h by a prison gua

rd give s rise to a

fe de ra l c a

use of a c tion.”(c ita

tion omitte d)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d She p ard’ s Eighth Ame ndm e nt c la im a ga inst de fe nda

nts C . M unozand C am

pos be c a use She pa

rd fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts showing tha

t the s e de fe nda

nts kne w of a

n d disre ga

rde d an e x c e ssive risk to his sa fe ty . Se eFarme r v

. Br e n nan , 51 1 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison of fic i a l c annot be found lia

ble for fa i ling to prote c t a n inm ate “ unle ss theof

fic ia l kne w of a

nd disre ga rde d a n e x c e ssive risk to inmat e . . . sa fe ty ” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de c lining to e xe rc i se supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r She pa rd’ s sta t e la w c la im s a fte r dism issing his fe de ra l c l a i m s without le av e to a m e nd. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1367(c )(3). W e c onstrue 1 3 - 1 7 2 1 9 2the d ism issa l of the sta te la w c la im s to bewithout pre j udic e . Se e Gini v

. Las V e gas Me t r o. Polic eDe

p’t , 40 F . 3d 1041, 1046 (9th C ir . 1994). W e re je c t She pa

rd’ s c onte ntion tha

t the distric t c ourt dismisse d She pa rd’ s a c tion a s a

favor to de fe nda

nts. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 7 2 1 9 3