Christopher Grindling v. ROY HIRAYAMA, Sgt.;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER GRINDLING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROY HIRAYAMA, Sgt.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15512
D.C. No. 1:05-cv-00694-DAE-
BMK
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Grindling, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FILED
MAR 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 09-15512 2
action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his pre-trial detention.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gibson v.
County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against
the County because Grindling failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether his constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or
custom of the County. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691
(1978).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against
the officers because Grindling failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the deputies used excessive force to restrain him. See Gibson, 290 F.3d at
1197-98 (outlining Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness test as applied to pre-trial
detainee’s excessive force claims).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grindling’s
requests for appointment of counsel because Grindling failed to demonstrate
exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v.
Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --