NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 7 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENN DAVID O’NEAL, No. 16-55809
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00803-DDP-FFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SMITH,
Deputy,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 5, 2018**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Glenn David O’Neal appeals pro se from the district
court’s dismissal order and summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging excessive force and access-to-courts claims arising from his pretrial
*
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).
detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Lemire v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013)
(summary judgment); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on O’Neal’s
excessive force claim against defendant Smith because O’Neal failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Smith’s actions were objectively
unreasonable under the circumstances. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct.
2466, 2473 (2015) (setting forth standard for an excessive force claim under the
Fourteenth Amendment).
The district court properly dismissed O’Neal’s access-to-courts claim
against defendant San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department because O’Neal
failed to allege facts sufficient to show actual injury to a nonfrivolous legal claim.
See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-53 (1996) (setting forth elements of an
access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); Simmons v. Sacramento Cty.
Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1160 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing standard for
restrictions placed on pretrial detainees).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 16-55809
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-55809