NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES M. CABRERA, No. 16-15829
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00918-RFB-CWH
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JESSIE NEVILLE, Officer, P6900;
NAPHCARE, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
NEVILLE, Officer; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Charles M. Cabrera, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
*
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).
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Guatay Christian Fellowship v.
County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Neville
on Cabrera’s excessive force claim because Cabrera failed to raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether Neville’s actions were objectively
unreasonable under the circumstances. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178,
1184 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of excessive force claim under the Eighth
Amendment); see also Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015)
(elements of excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
NaphCare, Inc. on Cabrera’s deliberate indifference claim because Cabrera failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether NaphCare, Inc.’s policies
or customs caused the alleged inadequate treatment. See Tsao v. Desert Palace,
Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements of a § 1983 claim against an
entity defendant); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (elements of
medical deliberate indifference claim).
2 16-15829
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Cabrera’s
motion for default judgment against NaphCare, Inc. because the factors weigh
against entry of default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72
(9th Cir. 1986) (standard of review and factors to be considered when district court
decides whether to enter default judgment).
Cabrera’s motion to extend the prison copy work limit (Docket No. 36) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-15829