NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARACELY HERNANDEZ, No. 19-35505
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01654-MK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
S. BERNSTEIN, 48452; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Aracely Hernandez appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations arising out of an incident during her pretrial detention in
which she alleges she was forced to exit the jail’s shower partially clothed and
*
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).
exposed to other guards and inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. S.R. Nehad v. Browder, 929 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th
Cir. 2019). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hernandez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants
committed any constitutional violation. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538-39
(1979) (“Absent a showing of an expressed intent to punish on the part of detention
facility officials . . . if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is
reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without
more, amount to punishment.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted));
Vazquez v. County of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1162 (9th Cir. 2020) (requirements of
Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity claim); Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd.
of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2017) (requirements of pretrial
detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily privacy claim); Byrd v.
Maricopa Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
(requirements of Fourth Amendment privacy claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez’s
request to continue summary judgment in order to conduct additional discovery
because Hernandez failed to demonstrate how additional discovery would have
precluded summary judgment. See Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home
2 19-35505
Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that the burden is on the party seeking a continuance to
conduct additional discovery to proffer sufficient facts to show that the evidence
sought would preclude summary judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Hernandez failed to demonstrate “exceptional
circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560
F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional
circumstances” standard for appointment of counsel).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants’ motion
for a retroactive extension to submit a declaration in support of their summary
judgment motion. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258,
1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and test to determine
whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes excusable neglect).
We reject as unsupported by the record Hernandez’s contentions that
defendants engaged in misconduct regarding discovery and that the district court
failed to issue a new scheduling order for defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-35505