N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SANFORD D. JONES, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. LEE D. B A C A , She riff of Los Ange le s C ounty ; C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a public e ntity , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-56503 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-08194-PA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Sanford D. Jone s a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c o nstitutiona l viola tions during his de te ntion in the

Los Ange le s C ounty

Ja il pursua

nt to C a lifornia ’ s Se xua lly Viole nt 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pre dat or Ac t (“ SVP Ac t” ). W e re vie w de novo, J one s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th C i r. 2004), a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use , e ve n a ssum ing tha

t a c onstitutiona

l de priva tion oc c urre d, Jone s fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r any suc h c onstitutiona

l de priva tion re sulte d from an offic ia l c ounty

c ustom or polic y , whe the r B a c a

wa s pe rsona lly

involve d in any c onstitutiona

l viola tion, or whe the r the re wa s a c a usa l c o nne c t ion be twe e n B a c a ’ s c onduc t

and a ny suc h viola

tion. S e e Mone ll v . De

p’t of Soc . Se r

v s ., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (re quire m e nts for m unic i pa l lia

bility); Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (re quire m e nts for supe rvisory lia bility); se ealso Sanc he z v . Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th C i r. 1989) (pa rty opposing sum

m ary judgm e nt m

ust pre se nt “ signific ant proba tive e vide n c e te nding to support its c la im that m ate ria l, tria

ble issue s of fa c t re m a in” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). W e re je c t Jone s’ s c o nte ntion tha t his de te ntion in a ja i l pursua nt to theSVP Ac t is unc onstitutiona

l . Se eJ one s , 393 F.3d a

t 932 (de c lining to hold tha t involunta ry c ivil c om m itm e nt de ta ine e s c annot be house d in ja il). W e a lso re

je c t Jone s ’ s c o nte ntion tha t he ra ise d a

ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t ba se d on the “ tota l ity

of c onditions”

of his c onfine m e nt. H

optow it v . Ray , 682

1 1 - 5 6 5 0 3 2F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th C ir. 1982), abrogate d on othe r grounds by Sandin v . C

onne r , 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (c ourts ge ne ra lly m ay not find c onstitutiona

l viola tions ba se d on the tota lity

of c onditions of c onfine m e nt). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in theope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 1 - 5 6 5 0 3 3