John Allen Rainwater v. JOHN McGINNESS, Sheriff

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN ALLEN RAINWATER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN McGINNESS, Sheriff,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16992
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00030-GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 18, 2014***
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
John Allen Rainwater appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations during
FILED
MAR 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

his detention in the Sacramento County Jail pursuant to California’s Sexually
Violent Predator Act (“SVP Act”). We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d
918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because, even
assuming that a constitutional deprivation occurred, Rainwater failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any such constitutional deprivation
resulted from an official county custom or policy, whether McGinness was
personally involved in any constitutional violation, or whether there was a causal
connection between McGinness’s conduct and any such violation. See Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (requirements for municipal
liability); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for
supervisory liability); see also Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989)
(party opposing summary judgment must present “significant probative evidence
tending to support its claim that material, triable issues of fact remain” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject Rainwater’s contention that his detention in a jail pursuant to the
SVP Act is unconstitutional. See Jones, 393 F.3d at 932 (declining to hold that
involuntary civil commitment detainees cannot be housed in jail).
12-16992 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We also reject Rainwater’s contention that he raised a genuine dispute of
material fact based on the “totality of conditions” of his confinement. Hoptowit v.
Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (courts generally may not find constitutional
violations based on the totality of conditions of confinement).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
12-16992 3

-- 3 of 3 --