NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL ECKARD, No. 19-35307
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01053-JCC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ASEN DESHEV, Correctional Mental
Health Custody Unit Supervisor, sued
individually and in official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Gabriel Eckard appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims arising out of his loss of book privileges. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 883 (9th
Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Eckard’s First
Amendment claim because Eckard failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether the prison policies under which he was sanctioned were not
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (stating that a prison regulation impinging on First
Amendment rights is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests and articulating the factors for determining the reasonableness of the
prison regulation at issue).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Eckard’s due
process claim arising from his prison disciplinary proceedings because Eckard
failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether he was denied any procedural
protections that were due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-68 (1974)
(due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); see also
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process are
satisfied if “some evidence” supports prison disciplinary decision); Cousins v.
Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009) (failure to follow internal prison
policy does not amount to a constitutional violation).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Eckard’s
2 19-35307
deliberate indifference claim because Eckard failed to raise a triable dispute as to
whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs. See
Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding deliberate
indifference is a “high legal standard” requiring a defendant be aware of and
disregard an excessive risk to an inmate’s health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Eckard’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Eckard failed to demonstrate “exceptional
circumstances” warranting the appointment of counsel. See Cano v. Taylor, 739
F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional
circumstances” requirements for appointment of counsel).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
3 19-35307