James E. White v. MARK N. PAZIN, Sheriff/Coroner (Sheriff Administration); et al., Defendants, and COUNTY OF MERCED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES E. WHITE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARK N. PAZIN, Sheriff/Coroner (Sheriff
Administration); et al.,

Defendants,

and

COUNTY OF MERCED,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-15793

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00917-BAM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
**

Submitted August 5, 2020
***

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).

***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15793
James E. White appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that, while he was a pretrial detainee in the
Merced County jail, the jail’s policy of denying visitation with children under the
age of 12 years old violated the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam
Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because White failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the jail’s policy was not
reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of the safety of the
children and the jail. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (stating that
a prison regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests and articulating the factors for determining the reasonableness of the
prison regulation at issue); Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1209 (9th
Cir. 2008) (applying the Turner factors to pretrial detainees).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
White’s request for sanctions, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.