FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN WILLIAM KING, No. 14-55718
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05221-AG-VBK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Kevin William King appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims and
violations of California regulations arising from his custody in Los Angeles
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
County Sheriff’s Department’s (“LASD”) Men’s Central Jail. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Kildare v. Saenz, 325
F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or
failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th
Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We may affirm on any basis
supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116,
1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed King’s First Amendment claims
because King failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was deprived of
access to mail correspondence, telephone, visitation, or the jail’s law library in
violation of his constitutional rights. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro
se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035-
36 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a § 1983 claim). We reject as unsupported by the
record King’s contention that the magistrate judge failed to state a basis for
dismissal of his claim for denial of visitation.
Dismissal of King’s Eighth Amendment false imprisonment claim was
proper because King failed to allege facts sufficient to show a deprivation of his
rights. See Naffe, 789 F.3d at 1036 (“Dismissal of a § 1983 claim following a Rule
2 14-55718
12(b)(6) motion is proper if the complaint is devoid of factual allegations that give
rise to a plausible inference of either element [of a § 1983 claim].”); Jones v.
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (liability under § 1983 requires
showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation).
Dismissal of King’s claims against LASD under Monell v. Department of
Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and Jackson and Corbett in their official
capacities, was proper because King failed to allege facts sufficient to show a
policy or custom of LASD resulting in a constitutional violation. See id. at 694,
690 (official capacity suits “represent only another way of pleading an action
against an entity of which an officer is an agent”); see also Castro v. County of Los
Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (municipal liability
requires “direct causal link” between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged
constitutional deprivation).
Dismissal of King’s claims alleging violations of Title 15 of the California
Code of Regulations was proper because the cited regulations do not create a
private right of action. See Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc., 138 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 130, 147 (Ct. App. 2012) (“Only the Legislature, through enactment of a
statute, can create a private right of action to directly enforce an administrative
regulation . . . .”).
3 14-55718
In light of our disposition, we do not consider King’s claims for punitive
damages or whether King exhausted his administrative remedies.
We do not consider King’s due process arguments raised for the first time in
his reply brief. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (appellate
court will not consider issues not properly raised before the district court and
arguments not raised in the opening brief are deemed waived).
AFFIRMED.
4 14-55718