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 R YSTAL SW EET, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R UIZ, C orre c tiona l Offic e , offic ia l a nd individual c a

pa c i ty ; R ALPH DIAZ, Ac ting Se c re ta ry of C a l De p t

of C orr. U R e ha

b; offic ia l a nd individua

l c a p a c ity ; JOHN DOES, 1 thru 5, R

ule s a nd Polic y M ana ge m e nt De pa

rtm e n t of C DC R , offic ia l a nd individua

l c a p a c ity ; JANE DOES, 1 thru 5, R

ule an d Polic y M ana gm e n t De pa

rtm e nt Offic e , offic ia l and individua

l c a pa c ity , De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 21-55057 D.C . No. 5:19-c v-00663-JVS-M R

W
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

5, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
JUL 6 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : WALLAC E , FER NANDEZ, a

n d SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. C ry sta l Swe e t, a

C a lifornia

prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of C orre c tiona l Offic e r M . R u izan d the Se c re t ary for the C a lifornia De p artm e nt of C orre c t ions a nd R e ha bilita tion 1 (“ C DC R ” ) in he r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion. W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting sum m a ry judgm e nt. W e re vie w de
novo a distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt. Se e Thomas v . Ponde r , 611 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th C ir. 2010); s e e also By rd v

. Maric opa C nty
. She r iff’s De

p’t , 629 F.3d 1135, 1140–41 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ). C DC R

polic y 2 did not re quire tha t Swe e t be se arc he d

by a gua rd who wa s biologic a l ly

fe m a le , a n d e ve n if Offic e r R

uiz ’ s
se arc h of Swe e t we re in viola tion of C DC R

polic y , a m e re viola

tion of C DC R polic y doe s not e sta

blish theviola

tion of a c onstitutiona

l right. Se e C

ousins v
. Loc k y e r , 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th C ir. 2009); c f . Sandin v . C

o n ne r , 515 U.S. 472, 481–82, 115 S. C t . 2293, 2299, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995).

1 At the tim e of filing thec o m pla int, the C DC R

Se c re ta ry wa s na m e d de fe nda n t R a lph Diaz . The c urre nt C DC R Se c re ta ry is Ka thle e n Allison. K

athle e n Allison, C DC R Se c r e tary , C A LI F O R N I A D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T I O N S A N D RE H A B I LI T A T I O N , https://www.c dc r.c a .gov/a b out-c dc r/se c re t ary

/ (la st visite d June 13, 2022).

2 C a l. De p ’ t. of C orr. & R e ha b., Ope ra tions M anua l , C h
. 5, Art. 19, § 52050.16.7 (2022).
2 1
- 5 5 0 5 7 2Additionally , the e vide nc e Swe e t pre se nte d doe s not e s ta

blish a s a m atte r of la w tha t she wa s subje c te d to a

n unre a sona

ble se arc h in viola tion of theFourth Am e ndm e nt. S

e e Grumme t t v . Rushe n , 779 F.2d 491, 496 (9th C ir. 1985); c f. By rd , 629 F.3d a

t 1141. Likewise , she ha s not e sta blishe d a s a

m atte r of la

w tha t she suffe re d a

viola t ion of he r Eighth Am e ndm e nt rights. Se e Some rs v . Thurman , 109 F.3d 614, 622–23 (9th C i r. 1997); c f. Be a rc hild v . C

o bban , 947 F.3d 1130, 1144–45 (9th C ir. 2020). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing le ave to a m e nd. Se e M/V Am. Que e n v . San Die go Marine

C onstr. C orp. , 708 F.2d 1483, 1492 (9th C ir. 1983). Am e ndm e nt of the c om pla i nt would befutile and c a use undue de la

y be c a use it would not c

ure the la c k of e vide nc e tha t re sulte d in sum

m ary judgm e n t,
and Swe e t ha s not a

rgue d tha t she c an provide any

a dditiona l e vide n c e at this la t e sta ge to support her c l a im s . Se e id. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se e Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). Also, be c a

use we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt, we
ne e d not a ddre ss De fe nda nts’ a dditiona l a

rgum e nts re ga

rding qua lifie d im

m unity
and Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im m unity
. AFFIRM E D.

2 1
- 5 5 0 5 7 3