FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLTON FIELDS, No. 14-16417
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01973-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDWARD MORENO, Dr.; RICK HILL,
Warden,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 10, 2015***
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Former California pre-trial detainee Carlton Fields appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Fields consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.
1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Fields’ claims against Mims, Moreno,
and Hill in their individual capacities because he failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that these defendants were personally involved in the jail’s denial of dental
care, or that their alleged misconduct caused his injuries. See Starr v. Baca, 652
F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or
she is personally involved in the constitutional violation or if there is “a sufficient
causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the
constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent that Fields alleged claims against Mims, Moreno, and Hill in
their official capacities, the district court properly dismissed these claims because
Fields failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the County of Fresno violated
his Eighth Amendment rights or that its alleged failure to correct its policies
amounted to deliberate indifference. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.
658, 690, n.55 (1978) (official capacity claims against municipal employees are
treated as claims against the municipality under § 1983); Gibson v. County of
2 14-16417
Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1186-88 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining municipal
liability under § 1983, the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard,
and that a pre-trial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment claims of inadequate medical
care are evaluated under the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference
standard).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fields’ request for
appointment of counsel because Fields did not demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth the standard of review and the “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-16417