United States v. 2020-04-14 | 19-15788 | JOHN DAVIS V. KERNITZKI | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN LEO DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KERNITZKI, Detention Officer at Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

PAUL PENZONE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 19-15788

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01335-SMB-
CDB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state pretrial detainee John Leo Davis appeals pro se from the

*
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

APR 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15788
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging
violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888
F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davis failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants violated his
rights by viewing him using the toilet and showering on four occasions. See
Vazquez v. County of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1162-63 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth
standard for pretrial detainee bodily integrity and cruel and unusual punishment
claims premised on allegations of sexual abuse by guards of the opposite gender);
Byrd v. Maricopa Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922-23 (9th Cir. 2017)
(setting forth standard for unreasonable search claim premised on guards of the
opposite gender viewing pretrial detainees showering and using toilets, and
explaining that observation that is infrequent, irregular, or from a distance may not
constitute a constitutional violation).
Davis’s opposed motion regarding defendants’ compliance with service
procedures is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.