
    Christopher GRINDLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Roy HIRAYAMA, Sgt.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-15512.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 24, 2010.
    
      Christopher Grindling, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Moana Monique Lutey, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Laureen L. Martin, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Department of the Corporation Counsel, Wailuku, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christopher Grindling, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his pre-trial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against the County because Grindling failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his constitutional rights were violated pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom of the County. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against the officers because Grindling failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the deputies used excessive force to restrain him. See Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1197-98 (outlining Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness test as applied to pre-trial detainee’s excessive force claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grindling’s requests for appointment of counsel because Grindling failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     