NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN DOE, No. 16-16650
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00118-AWI-
BAM
v.
KAWEAH DELTA HOSPITAL; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John Doe appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his privacy rights. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hernandez v. Spacelabs
Med. Inc., 343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Doe’s § 1983
claims because Doe failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
his alleged injury was caused by a policy or custom of Kaweah Delta Hospital or
the Kaweah Delta Health Care District. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833
F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (“[A] municipality may not be held
liable for a § 1983 violation under a theory of respondeat superior for the actions of
its subordinates. In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that
a policy or custom led to the plaintiff’s injury.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
To the extent Doe challenges the district court’s disposition of his claims
against defendant Breseman, this court previously resolved this issue in Doe v.
Kaweah Delta Hospital, 478 F. App’x 390 (9th Cir. May 23, 2012), and we are
bound by this determination. See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d
1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case doctrine . . . precludes a court
from reexamining an issue previously decided . . . in the same case.”).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Doe’s contentions concerning
equitable tolling.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2 16-16650
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Doe’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 29) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-16650