Cody Leavitt v. HAROLD WICKHAM, Associate Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CODY LEAVITT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAROLD WICKHAM, Associate Warden;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16645
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00490-GMN-
CWH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Cody Leavitt appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations arising from the withdrawal of his blood without his consent. We
* 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 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-16645
review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Leavitt’s Fourth
Amendment claims because Leavitt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the blood tests were not reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (setting
forth factors to determine the reasonableness of a challenged prison regulation);
see also Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1989)
(holding that the county had a compelling interest in diagnosing and preventing the
transmission of serious disease among detainees), overruled on other grounds by
Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 977-81 (9th Cir. 2010) (en
banc).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Leavitt’s
Fourteenth Amendment claims because Leavitt failed to raise a triable dispute as to
whether the blood tests implicated the Due Process Clause. See Schmerber v.
California, 384 U.S. 757, 759-60 (1966) (rejecting defendant’s claim that the
unconsented withdrawal of his blood violated his right to due process).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leavitt’s motion

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-16645
for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) because
Leavitt failed to demonstrate any basis for 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 grounds for relief from judgment under Rules
59(e) and 60(b)).
Leavitt’s opposed motion to supplement, filed on June 23, 2016, is denied.
The court will not consider allegations that were not presented to the district court.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --