William Leonard v. Renee Baker , 714 F. App'x 718 ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 1 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM LEONARD, AKA Bill Leonard, No. 17-16735
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00275-MMD-
VPC
v.
RENEE BAKER, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner William Leonard, AKA Bill Leonard, appeals pro se
from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional claims stemming from defendants’ use of a catheter to obtain a urine
sample from Leonard. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
*
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).
de novo. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Leonard’s Fourth
and Eighth Amendment claims related to the use of a catheter because Leonard
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the use of a catheter
was medically unacceptable and done in conscious disregard to an excessive risk to
Leonard’s health. See George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1217-20 (9th Cir. 2014)
(discussing factors for evaluating Fourth Amendment nonconsensual physical
search claim); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (to establish a
medical deliberate indifference claim, prisoner must show that the course of
treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and chosen in
conscious disregard to an excessive risk to his health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leonard’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d) motion to continue summary judgment to allow further discovery
because Leonard failed to identify specific facts to be obtained in discovery that
were essential to oppose summary judgment. See Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942,
945 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review); Family Home & Fin. Ctr.,
Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (party
must show that “(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to
elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after
2 17-16735
facts are essential to oppose summary judgment”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leonard’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Leonard failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting
forth standard of review and exceptional circumstances requirement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leonard’s motion
for reconsideration because Leonard failed to establish any 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
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-16735