FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACKIE ROBINSON, No. 10-55017
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00409-JAH-NLS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
R. DE LA VEGA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jackie Robinson, who is civilly committed in the state of California, appeals
pro se from the district court’s summary judgment and from the jury verdict in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Midwaters Trawlers Coop. v.
Dep’t of Commerce, 393 F.3d 994, 1002 (9th Cir. 2004), and for an abuse of
discretion review the district court’s evidentiary rulings and formulation of jury
instructions, White v. Ford Motor Co., 500 F.3d 963, 973 (9th Cir. 2007). We
affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Robinson’s claims
against defendant Kolender because Robinson failed to raise a triable dispute as to
whether Kolender was personally involved in the allegedly unconstitutional
conduct. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (supervisory
liability attaches only if supervisor “participated in or directed the violations, or
knew of the violations or failed to act to prevent them”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Robinson’s claims
against the County of San Diego because Robinson failed to raise a triable dispute
as to whether the allegedly unconstitutional conduct was a result of a failure to
train or an official policy or custom. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,
385-87 (1989) (municipal liability attaches only if unconstitutional conduct is
caused by failure to train or official policy or custom).
We need not decide whether the district court applied the proper standard to
Robinson’s medical treatment claim because Robinson failed to raise a triable
2 10-55017
dispute as to whether his constitutional rights were violated under any standard.
See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009)
(summary judgment standard).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding at trial evidence
related to Robinson’s cut because the evidence was not relevant to the
reasonableness of the search. See Fed. R. Evid. 401-402.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury
on the difference between a civil and criminal detainee because the difference was
not relevant to the reasonableness of the search. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d
918, 934 (9th Cir. 2004) (civil detainee may be subject to the same treatment as the
general criminal population if there is a “legitimate, non-punitive purpose” for the
treatment); see also Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979) (setting forth
reasonableness test).
AFFIRMED.
3 10-55017