Anthony Ivan Bobadilla v. JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY IVAN BOBADILLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15080
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00226-GEB-EFB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Anthony Ivan Bobadilla appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional claims arising from a patdown search. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
* 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
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 18-15080
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bobadilla’s Fourth Amendment claim
because Bobadilla failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the patdown search
conducted by defendant Guzman was unreasonable. See Grummett v. Rushen, 779
F.2d 491, 496 (9th Cir. 1985) (patdown searches that included the groin area “are
not so offensive as to be unreasonable under the fourth amendment”).
The district court properly dismissed Bobadilla’s Eighth Amendment claim
based on the patdown search because Bobadilla failed to allege facts sufficient to
show the infliction of severe psychological pain. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (allegation that prison guard entered cell while prisoner
was on the toilet and rubbed his thigh did not rise to the level of severe
psychological pain required to state an Eighth Amendment claim).
The district court properly dismissed Bobadilla’s Eighth Amendment
failure-to-protect claim because Bobadilla failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm to Bobadilla.
See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot be
found liable under the Eighth Amendment . . . unless the official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety”).
The district court properly dismissed Bobadilla’s Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim because Bobadilla failed to allege facts sufficient to

-- 2 of 4 --

3 18-15080
show that defendants were deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to his
mental health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2004)
(setting forth elements of a deliberate indifference claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bobadilla’s motion
to appoint counsel because Bobadilla did not demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir.
2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of
counsel). We reject as without merit Bobadilla’s contention that the district court
failed to explain its decision to deny the motion for counsel.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bobadilla leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be
futile); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining
that a district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is “particularly broad”
when it has previously granted leave to amend).
Contrary to Bobadilla’s contention, the district court did not err in implicitly
denying his motion to supplement his amended complaint, because Bobadilla was
granted an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s findings
and recommendations and he instead filed this motion.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 18-15080
We reject as unsupported by the record Bobadilla’s contention that he was
not given an opportunity to file objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations.
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.

-- 4 of 4 --