Valentino Solis v. WEST VALLEY DETENTION CENTER, Watch Commander, in his/her capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALENTINO SOLIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WEST VALLEY DETENTION CENTER,
Watch Commander, in his/her capacity; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56260
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-01005-PSG-JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Valentino Solis appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
* 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).
FILED
OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-56260
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Solis’s claims against West Valley
Detention Center and High Desert Detention Center because Solis failed to allege
facts sufficient to show that an official policy or custom deprived him of his
constitutional rights. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073
(9th Cir. 2016) (“In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that
a ‘policy or custom’ led to the plaintiff’s injury” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Solis’s deliberate indifference claim
arising from treatment while Solis was a pretrial detainee at High Desert Detention
Center because, under any applicable standard, Solis failed to allege facts sufficient
to show that defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Solis’s health.
See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A prison official acts
with deliberate indifference . . . only if the [prison official] knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”); Lolli v. County of
Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 419 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee’s claim of medical
deliberate indifference is analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Clause rather than under the Eighth Amendment, but same standards apply); cf.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-56260
Castro, 833 F.3d at 1067-71 (setting forth elements of Fourteenth Amendment
failure-to-protect claim by pretrial detainee).
The district court properly dismissed Solis’s failure-to-protect claim arising
from the conduct of a classification officer at West Valley Detention Center
because Solis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the defendant officer
knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Solis’s safety. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent
only if he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
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).
Solis’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --