Raymond Hunt v. M. RAMIREZ, Correctional Supervisor; MARQUEZ

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND HUNT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. RAMIREZ, Correctional Supervisor;
MARQUEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-55325
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00528-H-PCL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Hunt, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
FILED
JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1267 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunt’s excessive
force claim because Hunt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendant Ramirez used more than a de minimis amount of force or that
Ramirez acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 9-10 (1992) (“The Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments necessarily excludes from
constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use
of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hunt’s retaliation
claim because Hunt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Ramirez was aware that Hunt filed a prison grievance and took adverse action
against him because the protected conduct. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,
567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a § 1983 retaliation claim in the prison
context).
We do not consider evidence not presented to the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”)
14-55325 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Hunt’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on October 10, 2014, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-55325 3

-- 3 of 3 --