Maurice Hunt v. Andre Matevousian

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICE HUNT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN; S. HELLING,
Lieutenant at USP Atwater; W. GUNN,
Correctional Officer at USP Atwater;
GRAHAM, Correctional Officer at USP
Atwater,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-17464
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01560-LJO-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Maurice Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
* 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
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-17464
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging Eighth Amendment
claims of excessive force, failure to protect, and deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Belanus
v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hunt’s Eighth Amendment claims for
excessive force and failure to protect because a Bivens remedy is unavailable for
such claims. See Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 491-93 (2022) (explaining that
recognizing a cause of action under Bivens is “a disfavored judicial activity” and
that the presence of an alternative remedial structure precludes recognizing a
Bivens cause of action in a new context (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Chambers v. Herrera, 78 F.4th 1100, 1105-08 (9th Cir. 2023) (declining
to extend a Bivens remedy to Eighth Amendment excessive force or failure to
protect claims).
The district court properly dismissed Hunt’s Eight Amendment claim for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs because Hunt failed to allege
facts sufficient to show defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to
his health. See Colwell v. Bannister, 763 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting
forth standard for an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-17464
Hunt leave to amend this claim where Hunt had repeatedly refused opportunities to
amend. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041
(9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend
may be denied when amendment would be futile).
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).
Hunt’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 70) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --