NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAWRENCE WALLACE, No. 18-56671
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
5:16-cv-02046-MWF-SS
v.
A. GARIBAY, Correctional Officer; MEMORANDUM*
BUNSOLD, Correctional Officer, official
capacity; WILLIAMS, Lieutenant, in their
Official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 20, 2020**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TROTT, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Lawrence Wallace appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to Correctional Officers Alfredo Garibay and James Bunsold. The facts
*
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).
are known to the parties, so we do not repeat them here.
The district court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of
material fact because the record evidence—including video evidence and medical
examinations—flatly contradicts Wallace’s claims of sexual assault and other
injuries. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Vos v. City of Newport
Beach, 892 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2018). Moreover, the record evidence shows
that the application of force was necessary because Wallace resisted a search; the
amount of force used was reasonably necessary to complete the search; the
corrections officers reasonably perceived a threat from Wallace; and the officers
tempered the severity of their forceful response by escalating only when Wallace
resisted and by ensuring that Wallace received a medical examination after the
search. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). Accordingly, the district
court did not err in granting Garibay and Bunsold’s motion for summary judgment.
Wallace also argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying
his multiple requests for appointment of counsel. The district court concluded that,
because the factual and legal issues were not unusually complex and because
Wallace had the ability to articulate his claims without the assistance of counsel,
this case did not present any exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment
of counsel. Such decision was not an abuse of discretion. See Palmer v. Valdez,
560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).
2
Finally, Wallace lists “obstruction of [j]ustice” as an issue that he wishes to
raise. Because such issue was never raised before the district court, we will not
consider it for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052
(9th Cir. 1999).
Wallace’s pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 22, 24, and 33) are
DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
3