Andrew T. Hinckley v. Yakima County

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. See**
28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANDREW T. HINCKLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
YAKIMA COUNTY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
THURSTON COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 08-35297
D.C. No. 2:06-CV-03067-JPH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
James P. Hutton, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted November 17, 2009***
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

/Research 08-35297 2
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Andrew T. Hinckley, a former inmate at the Yakima County Jail, appeals
from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
that Yakima County violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from
an attack by other inmates. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002),
and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Hinckley
failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the County employees’ housing decision
was a direct result of a County policy, or whether the County had a custom or
policy that amounted to deliberate indifference and was the moving force behind
the employees’ housing decision. See id. at 1188, 1193-94 (discussing two ways to
establish municipal liability); see also Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir.
1995) (“Proof of random acts or isolated events is insufficient to establish
custom.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --