United States v. 2020-12-14 | 19-56149 | LEANDRO GONZALEZ V. A. RENTERIA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEANDRO LEONEL GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

A. RENTERIA, Correctional Officer; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-56149

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-02104-CAB-
WVG

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Leandro Leonel Gonzalez appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional claims. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

*
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

DEC 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-56149
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
Renteria because Gonzalez failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Renteria’s conduct amounted to an unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain. See Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525-26 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc)
(the Eighth Amendment prohibits “only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain”; evidence of no more than “momentary discomfort caused by the search
procedures” does not meet the “constitutional standard for a finding of pain”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Romero
because Gonzalez failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether Romero was
deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to Gonzalez when he
did not intervene during the searches performed by Renteria. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 836 (1994) (for an Eighth Amendment failure-to-
protect claim, the plaintiff must show the deprivation alleged was “objectively,
sufficiently serious” and the defendant was deliberately indifferent to a “substantial
risk of serious harm” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Cunningham
v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1289 (9th Cir. 2000) (officers “have a duty to intercede
when their fellow officers violate the constitutional rights of a suspect or other
citizen” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Segovia

3 19-56149
because Gonzalez failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether Segovia’s alleged
actions would have chilled a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his or her
First Amendment rights. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269, 1271 (9th
Cir. 2009) (discussing elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context and
objective standard governing the chilling inquiry).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.