Court Opinion

ID: 9380592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 17:00:54.547345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:25.390668
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARRYL BURGHARDT,                               No. 21-15736

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01433-AWI-GSA

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
L. BORGES; J. RENTERIA; J.
GUERRERO; K. CRIBBS; D. GOREE, Jr.;
R. BROOMFIELD; F. MONTOYA; M.
SEXTON; GONZALES; D. OSUMA; A. V.
JOHNSON,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Darryl Burghardt appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive

      *
             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).
force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii));

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A). We affirm.

       The district court properly dismissed Burghardt’s Eighth Amendment claims

because Burghardt failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants

physically engaged with and used pepper spray on him “maliciously and

sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” or knew of and disregarded an

excessive risk to his health and safety in providing medical treatment and

decontamination procedures. See Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903-904 (9th

Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) (discussing Eighth Amendment excessive force and

medical deliberate indifference claims); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

341–42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a

plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for

relief).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice

Burghardt’s claims that did not arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or

series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of parties);

                                           2                                     21-15736
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) (joinder of claims); United States v. Bowen, 172 F.3d

682, 688 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard of review).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second

amended complaint without further leave to amend after notifying Burghardt of the

deficiencies in his pleadings, advising him how to correct them, and affording him

multiple opportunities to amend his complaint. See Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc., 962

F.3d 405, 420 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[W]here the plaintiff has previously been granted

leave to amend and has subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to its

claims, the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.”

(citation omitted)).

      We reject as meritless Burghardt’s contention that the district court should

have reviewed a separate complaint containing unrelated claims that Burghardt

filed alongside his first amended complaint.

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                      21-15736