NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD JUNIOUS HILL, Sr., No. 18-35610
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:16-cv-00090-DLC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KOHUT, Doctor; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Richard Junious Hill, Sr., a Montana state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal 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. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hill’s excessive force claim because
Hill failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant used excessive force
against him. See Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (the core judicial
inquiry in analyzing such claims is not whether a certain quantum of injury was
sustained, but rather whether the force was applied maliciously and sadistically to
cause harm).
The district court properly dismissed Hill’s deliberate indifference claims
concerning his fall from an upper bunk and subsequent medical care because Hill
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of a deliberate indifference claim).
The district court properly dismissed Hill’s equal protection claim because
Hill failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009) (a complaint must contain more than a “formulaic
recitation of the elements of a constitutional discrimination claim” in order to state
a claim (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Vill. of Willowbrook v.
Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (setting forth elements of an equal
protection “class of one” claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3