NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN LEO DAVIS, No. 19-15788
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01335-SMB-
CDB
v.
KERNITZKI, Detention Officer at Maricopa MEMORANDUM*
County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
PAUL PENZONE, et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state pretrial detainee John Leo Davis appeals pro se from the
*
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).
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging
violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888
F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davis failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his
rights by viewing him using the toilet and showering on four occasions. See
Vazquez v. County of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth
standard for pretrial detainee bodily integrity and cruel and unusual punishment
claims premised on allegations of sexual abuse by guards of the opposite gender);
Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2017)
(setting forth standard for unreasonable search claim premised on guards of the
opposite gender viewing pretrial detainees showering and using toilets, and
explaining that observation that is infrequent, irregular, or from a distance may not
constitute a constitutional violation).
Davis’s opposed motion regarding defendants’ compliance with service
procedures is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-15788