N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KEVIN W ILLIAM KING,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. LOS ANGELES C OUNTY SHERIFF’ S DEPAR TM ENT, offic ia l c a p a c ity ; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-55718 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-05221-AG-VB K 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 Andre w J. Guilford, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Ke vin W illia

m King a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging c onstitutiona l c la im s a nd viola tions of C a l ifornia

re gula tions a rising from

his c ustody

in Los Ange le s 

# FIL ED DEC 23 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).C ounty

She riff’ s De pa

rtm e nt’ s (“ LASD” ) M e n’ s C e ntra l Ja il. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. K ildare v . Sae nz , 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th C ir. 2003) (dismissa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion or fa ilure to e xha

ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s); He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010) (dismissa l unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6)). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d by the re c ord, J ohnson v . Riv e rside

He althc areSy

s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008), a

nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d King’ s First Am e ndm e nt c la im s be c a use King fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic i e nt to show tha t he wa s de prive d of a c c e ss to m a il c orre sponde nc e , te le phone , visita tion, or theja il’ s la

w libra ry in viola tion of his c onstitutiona

l rights. Se eHe bbe , 627 F.3d a t 341-42 (a lthough pro se ple a dings a

re c onstrue d libe ra lly , pla i ntiff m ust pre s e nt fa c tua l a lle gations suffic i e nt to sta

te a pla u siblec l a im for re lie f); N affe v . Fre y , 789 F.3d 1030, 1035- 36 (9th C ir. 2015) (e l e m e nts of a § 1983 c la im). W e re

je c t a s unsupporte d by

the re c o rd King’ s c onte ntion tha t the m a gistra

t e judge fa i le d to sta

te a ba s is for dism issa l of his c la i m

for de nia l of visita

tion. Dism issa l of King’ s Eighth Ame n dm e nt fa lse im prisonm e nt c la im wa s prope r be c a

use King fa ile d to a lle ge fa c t s suffic ie nt to show a de priva tion of his rights. Se eN

affe , 789 F.3d a

t 1036 (“ Dism issa l of a

§ 1983 c la im

following a

R ule

1 4
- 5 5 7 1 8 212(b)(6) m otion is proper if the c om p la int is de void of fa c t

ua l a l le gations tha

t give rise to a p la

usibleinfe re nc e of e ithe r e le m e nt [of a § 1983 c la i m ] .” ); J one s v . W illiams , 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th C ir. 2002) (lia bility unde r § 1983 re quire s showing of persona l p a

rtic ipation in the

a lle ge d rights depriva

tion). Dism issa l of King’ s c la im s a ga inst LASD under Mone ll v . De p artme nt of Soc ial Se rv ic e

s , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a nd Ja c kson a

nd C orbe tt in the i r offic ia l c a pa c itie s, wa s prope r be c a

u se King fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show a polic y or c ustom

of LASD re sulting in a

c onstitutiona

l viola tion. S e e id. at 694, 690 (offic ia l c a

pa c ity suits “re pre se nt only anothe r wa y of ple a ding a

n a c tion a ga inst a n e ntity of whic h a

n offic e r is a

n a ge nt” ); se e also C

astro v . C ounty of Los Ange le s , 833 F.3d 1060, 1075 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba nc ) (m unic ipa l lia

bility re quire s “ dire c t c a

usa l link”be twe e n a

m unic ipa l polic y or c ustom and the a lle ge d c onstitutiona

l de priva tion). Dism issa l of King’ s c la im s a lle ging viola tions of Title

15 of the C a lifornia C ode of R e gula

tions wa s prope r be c a

use the c ite d re gula

t ions do not cre ate a priva te right of a c t ion. Se eThurman v . Bay shore Transit Mgmt., Inc
. , 138 C a l. R ptr. 3d 130, 147 (C t. App. 2012) (“ Only the Le gisla t ure , through e na c t

m e nt of a sta tute , c an c re ate a priva

te right of a c tion to dire c t ly e n forc e an a dm i nistra

tive re gula tion . . . .” ).

1 4
- 5 5 7 1 8 3In light of our disposition, we do not c onside r King’ s c la im s for punitive dam a ge s or whe t

he r King e xha

uste d his a dm inistra

tive re m e die s. W e do not c onside r King’ s due proc e ss a rgum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e in his re ply brie f. Se e Smith v
. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (a p pe lla te c ourt will not c onside r issue s not prope rly ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt a nd argum e nts not raise d in the ope ning brie f a re de e m e d wa ive d). AFFIRM E D.

1 4
- 5 5 7 1 8 4