Fields v. Lynch

── Fields v. Lynch ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCUS BRENT FIELDS, No. 24-7278 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-02488-DAD-CKD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFF LYNCH, Warden; MEADOWS, First Name Unknown, Correctional Officer- Sergeant; ANDRICHUKS, First Name Unknown, Psychologist; J. MACOMBER, Secretary, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Marcus Brent Fields appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional * 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). claims concerning his cell assignment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Fields’s action because Fields failed to allege facts sufficient to establish deliberate indifference or supervisory liability. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (holding that, to establish Eighth Amendment liability, a plaintiff must show that a defendant knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if they are personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Fields’s motions to appoint counsel because Fields did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 24-7278