VINCENT PAUL MELENDREZ V. MICHAEL COMPSTON, No. 17-35416 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VINCENT PAUL MELENDREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-35416 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00917-RAJ v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL COMPSTON; et al., Defendants-Appellees. 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). 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 failureto-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 17-35416

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.