Lamont Shepard v. P. Munoz

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Lamont Shepard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations in connection with inappropriate touching while he was being escorted back to his cell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shepard’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant P. Munoz because Shepard failed to allege facts showing that P. Munoz’s conduct objectively established a constitutional violation. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112-14 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[N]ot every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action.” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Shepard’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendants C. Munoz and Campos because Shepard failed to allege facts showing that these defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan,…