Robert Dixon v. County of Sonoma; Robert Giordano

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT DIXON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SONOMA; ROBERT
GIORDANO,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16620
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-07137-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Robert Dixon appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a policy of inadequate housing under the
Fourteenth Amendment while he was a pre-commitment civil detainee. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393
* 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).
FILED
AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16620
F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Dixon failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the County of Sonoma had
a policy or custom of violating the substantive due process rights of civil detainees
in the County’s Main Adult Detention Facility. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires execution of
policy or custom that inflicts plaintiff’s constitutional injury); Jones, 393 F.3d at
932 (a pre-commitment detainee is “entitled to protections at least as great as those
afforded to a civilly committed individual and at least as great as those afforded to
an individual accused but not convicted of a crime”); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d
911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Liability for improper custom may not be predicated on
isolated or sporadic incidents; it must be founded upon practices of sufficient
duration, frequency and consistency that the conduct has become a traditional
method of carrying out policy.”).
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).
Dixon’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --