Donald Lilly v. County of Humboldt; Sheriff’s Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD LILLY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT; SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16114
D.C. No. 5:19-cv-07941-NC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 15, 2022***
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
The responses to the October 5, 2021 order demonstrate that this appeal
involves non-frivolous issues. The order to show cause is therefore discharged,
* 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
JUN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16114
and Lilly’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 10) is granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect Lilly’s in
forma pauperis status, and will file the reply brief received on November 8, 2021
(Docket Entry No. 8).
Donald Lilly, a former civil detainee at Humboldt County Correctional
Facility, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas,
393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lilly failed
to rebut defendants’ evidence of legitimate, non-punitive reasons for the conditions
that Lilly described. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536-37 (1979) (holding
that the government may subject an inmate to the general conditions of the facility
so long as those conditions do not amount to punishment or otherwise violate the
Constitution); Jones, 393 F.3d at 932 (maintaining jail security and effective jail
management are legitimate, non-punitive governmental interests).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --