N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHN ALLEN R

AINWATER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JOHN M c GINNESS, She riff, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16992 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00030-GGH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gre gory G. Hollows, M a gistra

te 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. John Alle n R a inwa

te r a ppe a ls pro se from

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 onstitutiona l viola tions during 

# 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

rtie s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a g istra te judge . S

e e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

*** 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).his de te ntion in the Sa c ram e nto C ounty

Ja il pursua

nt to C a lifornia ’ s Se xua l ly Viole nt 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 ir. 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, R a i nwat e r fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine d isputeof 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 o unty

c ustom or polic y , whe the r M c Ginne s s wa s pe rsona lly

involve d in a

ny c onstitutiona

l viola tion, or whe the r the re wa s a c a usa l c onne c tion be twe e n M c Ginne ss’ s c onduc t a nd a ny suc h viola

tion. S e eMone 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 i r. 2011) (re quire m e nts for supe rvisory

lia bility); s e ealso Sanc he

z v . Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th C i r. 1989) (party opposing sum

m ary judgm e nt m

ust pre se nt “ signific ant proba t ive e v ide nc e te nding to support its c la im tha t m ate ria l, tria

ble issue s of fa c t re m a i n” (c ita t ion and inte rna l quota

tion m a rks omitte d)). W e re je c t R a inwa

te r’ s c onte ntion tha

t his de te ntion in a

ja il pursua

nt to the SVP 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).

1 2 - 1 6 9 9 2

2W e a lso re je c t R a inwa

te r’ s c onte ntion tha

t he ra ise d a

ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t ba se d on the“ tota lity of c onditions” of his c onfine m e nt. Hoptow it v . Ray , 682 F.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 n e 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 the ope 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 2 - 1 6 9 9 2 3