Hank Zabala v. Mike Haley , 693 F. App'x 675 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HANK ZABALA, No. 15-16859
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00393-RFB-PAL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MIKE HALEY, Sheriff of Washoe County;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Former detainee Hank Zabala appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations arising from his placement in administrative segregation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Zabala’s claims
against Sheriff Haley because Zabala failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether Sheriff Haley personally participated in the alleged
constitutional violations or whether there was a sufficient causal connection
between Sheriff Haley’s conduct and the alleged constitutional violations. See
Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for
establishing supervisory liability under § 1983).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Zabala’s
motion for leave to file an amended complaint and granting summary judgment in
favor of the remaining defendants because Zabala failed to amend his notice of
appeal or file a separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572,
585 (9th Cir. 2007).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16859