NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAINE ANTON CRAWLEY, No. 23-2197 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02179-CDS-BNW Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; NAPHCARE, INC., medical company at CCDC; WELLPATH LLC, medical company now at CCDC; NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, High Desert State Prison Medical; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF CLARK, corporation; B WOLDEN, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer; JOE LOMBARDO, Sheriff Las Vegas Metropolitan Police; MELODY MERALONA, Naphcare Provider; RICHARD NEWMAN, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Sgt; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF PAROLE AND PROBATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Daine Anton Crawley appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during his pretrial

detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment. Hamby v.

Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant Wolden

on Crawley’s excessive force claim because Crawley failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether Wolden personally participated in the alleged

excessive force in March 2018. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.

2002) (explaining that liability under § 1983 requires personal participation by the

defendant in the alleged rights deprivation).

Crawley’s requests for appointment of counsel, set forth at Docket Entry No.

25 and in the opening and reply briefs, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 23-2197