Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jesse M. Skinner, Petitioner v. R. Lee, et al.

/HWbIK

Add

A

FILED

NeTHFOR-PUBLICATIGN

MAR 17 2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

‘C-

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S.’ COURT OFAPPEALS .

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSE M. SKINNER,

No. 22-55146

. Plaintiff - Appellant,

•

D.C.No.

5:19-cv-01116

v.

MEMORANDUM’

R. LEE, etal.,

Defendants- Appellees

•

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding •

’

5 / ■■ ■

■: , ?

?

.

. .

Argued and Submitted Mardh 6, 2025

Pasadena, California

.'

.

Before: TALLMAN, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

.

; . : Appellant Jesse Skinner, a federal inmate, appeals the dismissal of his Third

Amende^ Complaint for failure to complyAvitlnRule.8 ahd failure to. state a claim..

Skinner’s-counseled .briefs bn appeal challenge the dismissal of his Eighth

Amendment excessive force claim alleging that federal corrections officers abused

and harassed Skinner and then retaliated against him for filing grievances. Skinner

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

PV 1

is', foreclosed _by Chambers v.‘

•

Herrera,78 F.4th 1100>(9th Cir. 2023), which barred-extending a Bivens remedy to

Eighth .Amendment-excessive force claims. Skiriiier urges us to hear this case

'-

initially eri banc .to. reconsider-and overrule Chambers: We have jurisdiction under

. .

28 U.S.C. §1291, decline-the .invitation, and affirm the district court’s dismissal

under Chambers.

.

: 1.

' The district .cohrt properly dismissed Skinner’s Eighth Amendment ■

excessive'force claim -after concluding it was not cognizable under Bivens. . See.

.

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.SJ.482, 496-98 (2022); Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120,135- ■

' 37 (2017); While this’appeal was pending, we held that a Bivens remedy does not

extend.to Eighth Amendment excessive force claims. Chambers, 78 F.4th at 1107—

08:.<-i. Because Chambers::'expressly forecloses Skinner’s ..Eighth Amendment

excessive..force-claim;.;we/affifm the district court’s dismissal of that claim. -The?? .;<;••

district court did not .abuse its ^discretion in denying Skinner leave, to am end. for a

;■ fourth-time given-that<; further-.leave to amend would be futile in the face : of

Chambers)

2.

.

c.-?

We also reject Skinner’s request that we bypass the regular three-judge

panel and initially hear this case en banc. Ninth Cir. Gen. Ord. 5.2. Contrary to

1 We do not entertain Skinner’s attempt to challenge the dismissal of his remaining

claims because they were not raised in his counseled brief and are thus waived.

A 2

5

3

22-55146

.....

•

-Skinner^, arguments, this case does not present-^ "“question of exceptional

importance.” Fed. R. App. P. 40. Whether or not Chambers effectively insulates

federal officials who use excessive force against prisoners from civil liability is the

type-of policy issue that .the Supreme Court has counseled is reserved to Congress,

not the courts. See Egbert, 596 U.S. at 496; Chambers, 78 F.4th at 1108. For these

reasons, we deny Skinner’s petition for initial hearing eri banc and his motion to file

an oversized petition.

3.

We also deny Skinner’s pro se motion for injunctive relief, and his

motions to file pro se supplemental briefs in addition to his counseled briefs/ Once

a party is-appointed counsel, as Skinner was here, we decline to consider pro se

filings.

.

• .

..

AFFIRMED.

3

22-55146

JESSE M. SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. R. LEE, et al., Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10974

Case No. 5:19-01116 DMG (ADS)

January 20, 2022, Decided

January 20, 2022, Filed

Editorial Information: Subsequent History

Affirmed by, Injunction denied by, Motion denied by, Request denied by Skinner v. Lee, 2025 U.S. App.

LEXIS 6179, 2025 WL 829668 (9th Cir. Cal., Mar. 17, 2025)

Editorial Information: Prior History

Skinner v. Lee, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251323, 2021 WL 6617444 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2021)Skinner v.

Lee, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251321, 2021 WL 6617390 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2021)

{2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS IkJesse M. Skinner. Plaintiff, Pro se,

BRUCETON MILLS, WV.

Judges: DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Counsel

Opinion

Opinion by:

DOLLY M. GEE

Opinion

ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended Civil Rights Complaint, the

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, the Objections to Magistrate's

Report and Recommendation, the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff's objections to the Supplemental Report and Recommendation. 1 The

Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to

which objections were made and overrules the objections. The Court accepts the finding and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED [Doc. ## 30, 34];

2. Judgment shall be entered accordingly; and

3. Any and all pending motions are DENIED as moot [Doc. ## 37, 38],

DATED: January 20, 2022

Is/ Dolly M. Gee

DOLLY M. GEE

lyicases

1

© 2025 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions

and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.

35713019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Pursuant to the Court's Order Accepting United States Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the above-captioned{2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2}

case is dismissed in its entirety. All claims against the defendants are dismissed with prejudice

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

DATED: January 20, 2022

/s/ Dolly M. Gee

DOLLY M. GEE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes

1

The initial Report and Recommendation and Supplemental Report and Recommendation will be

collectively referred to as the "Report and Recommendation."

lyicases

2

© 2025 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions

and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.

b.

35713019

FILED

Ui\TITED^STATES COURT GF APPEALS

MAY 28 2025

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JESSE M SKINNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

':v. •

R. LEE, Individually, VIP Unit IB Officer;

et al.,

No.

22-55146

D.C.No.

5:19-cv-01116-DMG-ADS

Central 'District of California,

Riverside

i

'

■

‘

■

ORDER

Defendants-Appellees.

Before: TALLMAN, IKUTA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

/

;. Appellant’s motion to withdraw as counsel (Dkt. 85) is GRANTED.

Appellant’s pro se pleadings are construed as a petition for rehearing en banc. The

full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has ,

requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The

petition for rehearing en banc, (Dkt. 84), is DENIED. .No further filings will be

considered in this matter.

f^' I

*

77U5 42 u-sx- 3

■ § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

fEvery persdnjwho/ under color ofanyj'tatute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, ofanyj1

[State or(Tefritdry^orftKe~Distrrct of C61urifKa| subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of

the United States or other person jwitfrin-the'jurisdtetidh thereofIo the deprivation ofany* rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured

in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action

brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,

injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief

was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to

the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

HISTORY:

LrTs. § 1979i~Dec. 29, "19/7,9, P. L. 96-170, §1,93~Stat. 1784) Oct. 19, 1996, P. L. 104-317, Title

III, § 309(c), 110 Stat. 3853.

uses

© 2025 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNcxis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions

a"hd terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.

35713019