Vincent Paul Melendrez v. Michael Compston;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT PAUL MELENDREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL COMPSTON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35416
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00917-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Vincent Paul Melendrez appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.C.S. § 1983 action alleging claims
arising from an assault by another inmate during Melendrez’s pretrial detention.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. FTC v.
* 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
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35416
Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Melendrez
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants placed
Melendrez at a substantial risk of serious harm. See Castro v. County of Los
Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1067-71 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (elements of a failure-
to-protect claim under the Fourteenth Amendment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for
lack of jurisdiction against defendant John Caster because Melendrez failed to
show good cause for the failure to serve Caster after two attempts by the U.S.
Marshals Service. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that a prisoner “proceeding in
forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service” as long as he or
she “provide[s] the necessary information to help effectuate service”).
We reject as without merit Melendrez’s contention that his due process
rights were violated by the district court’s consideration of defendants’ motion for
summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --