Steven Derrick Irvin v. Leroy D. Baca;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN DERRICK IRVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LEROY D. BACA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-55540
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-07925-AHS-CW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Steven Derrick Irvin, a California civil detainee, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
defendants used excessive force and denied him medical treatment. We have
FILED
APR 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

11-55540 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Irvin’s excessive force claim
against Baca in his individual capacity because Irvin failed to allege facts sufficient
to show that Baca was personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations.
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (government officials not
individually liable under § 1983 on theory of respondeat superior); Ivey v. Bd. of
Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Vague and
conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”).
The district court also properly dismissed Irvin’s excessive force claim
against Baca in his official capacity because Irvin failed to allege facts sufficient to
show that a county policy or custom caused him to be shackled. See Brandon v.
Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-72 (1985) (a claim against a public official in his or her
official capacity is the same as a claim against the governmental entity); Galen v.
County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir. 2007) (a municipality is liable
under § 1983 only if the unconstitutional conduct is caused by a municipal policy
or custom, or by a failure to train officials properly).

-- 2 of 4 --

11-55540 3
The district court properly dismissed Irvin’s Fourteenth Amendment claims
against the Doe defendants because Irvin failed to allege facts showing that
defendants’ decisions regarding shackling were a substantial departure from
accepted professional judgment. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 320-23
(1982) (recognizing physical restraint of civil detainees is necessary at certain
times and is subject to reasonable professional judgment).
The district court also properly dismissed Irvin’s claim against Dr. Kim
because Irvin failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Dr. Kim was responsible
for the delays in Irvin’s medical treatment. See McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050,
1062 (9th Cir. 1992) (no deliberate indifference where doctor defendants not
responsible for delays in treatment), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs.,
Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); see also Clouthier v.
County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1242 (9th Cir. 2010) (deliberate
indifference standard applies to medical treatment claims by pretrial detainees);
Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004) (constitutional rights of civil
detainees are similar to pretrial detainees).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Irvin leave to amend
his first amended complaint, where it had previously provided notice of the
complaint’s deficiencies and granted leave to amend. See Chodos v. West Publ’g

-- 3 of 4 --

11-55540 4
Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and
noting that court’s discretion is particularly broad where it has already granted
leave to amend).
Irvin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --