Bobby Hillman v. Greenwood, C/o; State of Oregon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY HILLMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GREENWOOD, C/O; STATE OF
OREGON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35843
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02256-MK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Bobby Hillman appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung,
391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
* 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
AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-35843
The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant
Greenwood on Hillman’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim because
Hillman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Greenwood
used more than a de minimis amount of force against him. See Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7, 9-10 (1992) (setting forth substantive standard for
excessive force claim and stating that de minimis use of force generally does not
violate Eighth Amendment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hillman’s motion
for reconsideration because Hillman failed to demonstrate any grounds for such
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and listing grounds
warranting reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider Hillman’s renewed request for appointment of counsel
set forth in his opening brief. In Docket Entry No. 22, this court denied Hillman’s
motion for appointment of counsel and ordered that no motions for
reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or
entertained.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-35843
Hillman’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --