Brown v. Gomez

Full title: Joel BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James H. GOMEZ, Director; William K…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 28, 2001

19 F. App'x 513 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

19 Fed.Appx. 513 (9th Cir. 2001) Joel BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James H. GOMEZ, Director; William K. Haythorne, Food Manager, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-16612. D.C. No. CV-96-00107-EJG. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 28, 2001

Submitted August 13, 2001. ^*

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

State prisoner filed § 1983 action alleging that prison officials failed to provide him with adequate nutrition. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Edward J. Garcia, J., entered summary judgment in favor of officials, and prisoner appealed. The Court of Appeals held that district court was not obliged to empanel grand jury to which to present complaint.

Affirmed.

Page 514.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Joel Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in Brown's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials' failure to provide him with adequate nutrition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994).

We affirm because the food policy is adequate, see LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1456 (9th Cir.1993), because Gomez had no personal involvement in or responsibility for the application of the food policy, cf. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978), and because there is no evidence that Haythorne was deliberately indifferent, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-40, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to impanel a grand jury or by failing to present Brown's proposed complaint to a grand jury, because pursuit of indictments and prosecutions is within the exclusive discretion of the United States Attorney. See United States v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356, 1366 (9th Cir.1987); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a).

The district court did not err in denying Brown's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests for court telephone records, because the judiciary is exempt from FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B).

Brown's remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.