N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM ES EDWARD JONES, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. SPEC IAL C OM M ITM ENT C ENTER ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-35079 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-05018-B HS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Jam e s Edwa

rd Jone s, a

W a shington pre -tria l c ivil de ta ine e , a ppe a l s 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 c la im s in c onne c t ion with the qua l ity and te m pe rature of the wate r 

# FIL ED MAR 03 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 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).and a ir in his housing unit a t the Spe c i a l C om

m itm e nt C e nte r (“ SC C ” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, a nd m a y a ffirm on a

ny ba sis supporte d

by the re c o rd. Enlow

v . Sale m-K

e i ze r Ye llow

C ab C o. , 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r a s to Jone s’ c l a im s a ga inst de fe nda nts Dubble and Ne rio, a

nd his wa te r te m pe rat ure , a ir te m

pe rature , a

n d a ir qua lity c la im s a ga inst de fe n da

nt Strong, be c a

use Jone s fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine dispute of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r the se de fe nda nts we re pe rsona l ly

involve d in a c onstitutiona

l viola t ion or whe the r the ir c o nduc t c a u se d any suc h viola tion. Se e Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th C ir. 2011) (re quire m e nts for e sta blishing supe

rvisory lia

bility). The distric t c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt for Strong on Jone s’ wate r qua lity c la im . Howe ve r, Jone s ra ise d a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r Strong viola

te d his Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights by subje c ting him

to punishm e nt. Se eJ

one s v . Blanas , 393 F.3d 918, 931-32 (9th C ir. 2004) (a na ly z ing pre -tria l c ivil de ta i ne e s’ c onditions of c onfine m e nt unde r the Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt a

nd e xpla ining tha

t suc h individuals c annot besubje c t to c onditions am ounting to punishm

e nt). The re c ord c onta ins e vide n c e showing tha t the wate r in Jone s’ housing unit wa s ofte n brown, ha d floa ting debris, a

nd at le a s t onc e , c a

use d

1 5 - 3 5 0 7 9 2Jone s a

nd a nothe r de ta ine e ga strointe stina l distre ss a nd vom iting. Se e K

e e nan v . Hall , 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th C ir. 1996), ame n de d by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th C ir. 1998) (re ve rsing sum

m ary judgm e nt on prisoner’ s Eighth Ame ndm e nt c la im a lle ging tha

t wate r in his housing unit wa s “ B lue /Gre e n in C olor a

nd Foul Ta sting[,] ” e v e n though de fe nda nts produc e d e vide nc e tha t “ re c e nt wa

te r qua lity te sts showe d tha

t t he wate r wa s pristine ” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). Jone s a lso submi tte d e vide nc e showing tha t sta ff oc c a siona lly

told de ta ine e s not to use the wate r a

n d pa sse d out wa

te r bottle s, a

nd Strong did not a

d dre ss Jone s’ c onc e rn tha

t he wa s una

ble to showe r, wa s h, or sha ve . Ac c ordingly , we re v e rse sum m ary judgm e nt on this c la im

and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. C ontra ry to Jone s’ c onte ntion, thedistric t c ourt did not ove rlook his c la im re ga rding SC C Polic y

204 be c a use it gra nte d sum m a ry judgm e nt on this c la im . W e do not c onside r argum e nts a n d a l le gations 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). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

1 5 - 3 5 0 7 9 3