FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT R. REAN, No. 12-16506
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01094-RLH-RJJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF LAS VEGAS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert R. Rean, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that detention officials
violated his constitutional rights in connection with the photographing of his
tattoos. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.
2004), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of a motion to amend a complaint,
Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rean’s Eighth
Amendment claim because Rean failed raise a genuine dispute of materials fact as
to whether defendants used excessive force against him. See Martinez v. Stanford,
323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing standard for determining whether
use of force was excessive).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rean’s Fourth
Amendment claim because Rean failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
defendants violated his “limited right to bodily privacy” or permitted a search that
was “excessive, vindictive, harassing, or unrelated to any legitimate penological
interest.” Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 332-34 (9th Cir. 1988)
(explaining that inmate right to bodily privacy is not violated if guards only make
casual observations of the inmate or the observations are made from a distance).
Dismissal of Rean’s access-to-courts claim against defendant Olson was
proper because Rean failed to state facts sufficient to show that Olson’s actions
caused an actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (setting
forth actual injury requirement).
2 12-16506
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rean’s motion to
file an amended complaint because the proposed amendments would have been
futile. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) (“‘When a
proposed amendment would be futile, there is no need to prolong the litigation by
permitting further amendment.’” (citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16506