Jason Eric Sonntag v. Dennis Balaam;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASON ERIC SONNTAG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DENNIS BALAAM; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16149
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00311-RCJ-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jason Eric Sonntag appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants used excessive
force against him and violated his constitutional rights by subjecting him to a strip
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-16149 2
search while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d
1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sonntag’s
excessive force claim because Sonntag failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether the force used to transfer him to administrative segregation and
the threatened use of a taser were unreasonable or amounted to punishment. See
id. at 1197 (Fourteenth Amendment protects a pretrial detainee from excessive
force that is unreasonable or amounts to punishment); see also Byrd v. Maricopa
Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t., 629 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (search of
pretrial detainee due to security concerns, including suspicion of contraband, did
not violate due process because it was related to legitimate goals and was not
intended to punish); Mitchenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 334-36 (9th Cir.
1998) (upholding threatened use of a taser by prison officials as a means to ensure
compliance with a search).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Sonntag’s strip
search claim because Sonntag failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether the search was unreasonable. See Byrd, 629 F.3d at 1141 (outlining
factors for determining whether search was reasonable); Mitchenfelder, 860 F.2d at

-- 2 of 3 --

11-16149 3
332-33 (upholding the use of routine strip search procedures); see also Taylor v.
List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (the nonmoving party cannot avoid
summary judgment by “relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by
factual data”).
We do not consider issues not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in
the opening brief, including the dismissal with prejudice of Sonntag’s claims
relating to wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and challenging the conditions
of his confinement. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Sonntag’s contention that a twenty-five hour placement in administrative
segregation without a hearing violated his due process rights is unpersuasive. See
Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987) (it is not unreasonable for prison
administrators to transfer inmates temporarily to greater security regions pending
an investigation).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --